OCS Study 

MMS 2006-072 

 

Mica Shipwreck Project 

Deepwater Archaeological Investigation 

of a 19th Century Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
OCS Study 

MMS 2006-072 

Mica Shipwreck Project 

Deepwater Archaeological Investigation 

of a 19th Century Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico 

Authors 

A.D. Atauz 

W. Bryant 

T. Jones 

B. Phaneuf 

Prepared under MMS Cooperative Agreement 

1435-01-01-CA-31178 

by 

Texas A&M University 

Department of Oceanography 

College Station, Texas 77843 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

New Orleans

December 2006 
DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between Minerals Management Service (MMS) and 

Texas A&M University. This report has been technically reviewed by the MMS and it has been 

approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of the MMS, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and 

compliance with the MMS editorial standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Extra copies of this report may be obtained from the Public Information Unit (Mail Stop 5034) at 

the following address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mineral Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Public Information Unit (MS 5034) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

Telephone: (504) 736-2519 or 

 1-800-200-GULF 

CITATION 

Suggested citation: 

Atauz, A.D., W. Bryant, T. Jones, and B. Phaneuf. 2006. Mica shipwreck project: Deepwater 

archaeological investigation of a 19th century shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-072. 116 pp. 

ABOUT THE COVER 

The cover art shows photographs of the Submarine NR1 (upper left), the research/support vessel 

Carolyn Chouest (upper right), side scan sonar image of the Mica shipwreck (lower left), a view 

of the Mica Shipwreck (lower center) and a view from the control room of the NR1 (lower right). 

iii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to acknowledge those organizations and individuals that make this 

research project possible: Exxon-Mobil, Inc. and the Texas A&M SeaGrant Program provided 

funding, the Minerals Management Service-Social Sciences Division (New Orleans, LA) 

provided project oversight with special thanks to Jack Irion, David Ball and Rik Anuskiewicz. 

Kevin Crisman (Nautical Archaeology Program, Texas A&M University) provided invaluable 

guidance in the conduct of field operations and Toby Jones provided the foundation of this report 

which is in part based on his master’s thesis. 

Special thanks belong to the United States Navy for providing through the Naval 

Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO - Stennis, MS) a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and 

personnel in support of field operations and for providing the Submarine Support Vessel (SSV) 

Carolyn Chouest and the Nuclear Research Submarine, NR1 for the duration of our mission at 

sea, the authors would like to thank in particular the Officer-in-Charge of the NR1, Dennis 

McKelvy and the Executive Officer, Rob Hanna for their outstanding work and esprit de corps. 

Thanks also go to Brett Phaneuf, the project manager, who oversaw all stages of project 

development, planning, teambuilding, and fieldwork. 

v 
vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ix 

LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................xi 

1.0: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0: GEOGRAPHICAL, GEOPHYSICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................... 5 

2.1. Geographical and Geophysical Background.................................................................. 5 

2.1.1. Winds and Currents in the Gulf of Mexico........................................................ 5 

2.1.2. Brief History of Commercial Navigation in the Gulf of Mexico....................... 6 

2.1.2.1. Development of Navigation Routes in the Gulf ................................. 7 

2.1.3. Commercial Harbors and Ports of the Gulf in the 19th Century ....................... 9 

2.2. Historical Background ................................................................................................. 10 

2.2.1. Geopolitical Situation, Economic Conditions, and Commercial Navigation 

in the Gulf of Mexico in the First Half of the 19th Century........................... 10

3:0. THE MICA SHIPWRECK PROJECT: OBJECTIVES, METHODOLOGY 

AND TECHNOLOGY......................................................................................................... 13 

3.1. Description of the Archaeological Site........................................................................ 13 

3.2. Summary of Fieldwork Activities Prior to the Main Field Season.............................. 13 

3.2.1. Research Goals and Scientific Objectives ....................................................... 13 

3.2.2. First Scientific Visit to the Site........................................................................ 16 

3.2.3. Second Scientific Visit to the Site ................................................................... 17 

3.3. Scientific Investigation Tools Used in the Main Field Season.................................... 18 

3.3.1. Underwater Positioning ................................................................................... 18 

3.3.2. NR-1................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.3. SSV Carolyn Chouest...................................................................................... 20 

3.4. Activities of the Main Field Season............................................................................. 21 

3.5. Fourth Scientific Visit to the Site.................................................................................. 24 

3.6. Results........................................................................................................................... 25

4:0. ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................... 35 

4.1. Artifacts........................................................................................................................ 35 

4.1.1. Wood Samples ................................................................................................. 35 

4.1.2. Metallic Sheathing and Fasteners .................................................................... 36 

4.1.3. Lead Hawse Pipe.............................................................................................. 40 

4.1.4. Artifact Conservation....................................................................................... 41 

4.1.5. Analysis of the Hull and Rigging - Identification of the Ship's Sail 

Arrangement ................................................................................................... 42

5:0. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 45
viii 

6:0. APPENDIX A: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE USE OF METALLIC SHEATHING 

ON WOODEN SAILING SHIPS by Toby Jones................................................................ 49

7:0 APPENDIX 2: MICA SHIPWRECK ARTIFACT CATALOG by Toby Jones.................. 69

8:0 APPENDIX 3: METALLIC SHEATHING STUDY RESULTS by Toby Jones ................ 77

9:0 APPENDIX 4: HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RIGGING 

by Toby Jones ...................................................................................................................... 87

10:0. APPENDIX 5: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SHIP ENROLLMENT RECORDS FOR 

NEW ORLEANS by Toby Jones....................................................................................... 105

REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................... 137 
LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE 

Figure 1. A view of the Mica Shipwreck from the starboard side of the bow ........................2 

Figure 2. Major commercial harbors around the Gulf of Mexico (with an emphasis on the 

north coast), with the generally accepted dates for their foundation .......................9 

Figure 3. Survey route of the Hugin Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. .............................17 

Figure 4. Side scan sonar image of the Mica shipwreck.......................................................18 

Figure 5. The United States Navy Submarine NR-1 surfaces during the investigation........19 

Figure 6. SSV Carolyn Chouest, the surface support vessel for NR-1 .................................20 

Figure 7. Bow area of the Mica shipwreck ...........................................................................25 

Figure 8. Detail of the starboard stern quarter of the Mica shipwreck..................................26 

Figure 9. Profile view of the port stern quarter of the Mica shipwreck ................................27 

Figure 10. A sketch drawing of the Mica shipwreck site showing the approximate 

positions of the artifacts and major features of the wreck site...............................28 

Figure 11. Chain-plate or deadeye strap seen aft of amidships on the port side.....................29 

Figure 12. Starboard side of the stern where the wood samples were collected.....................35 

Figure 13. Largest fragment of metallic sheathing recovered from the Mica shipwreck.. .....37 

Figure 14. The refracting electron microprobe sample carrier................................................38 

Figure 15. Forward face of lead hawse pipe from the Mica shipwreck.. ................................40 

Figure 16. Interior opening of conserved lead hawse pipe from the Mica shipwreck. .... ......41 

Figure 17. A fragment of the copper sheathing retrieved from the Mica shipwreck.. ............42 

Figure A1. The false keel from Invincible, lost in 1758 ..........................................................56 

Figure A2. Carpenters applying pine sheathing before the application of metallic 

sheathing. ...............................................................................................................58 

Figure A3. A sheathing nail advertisement from 1806. ...........................................................66 

ix 
Figure C1. A copy of the original report of the metal analysis carried out on the copper 

nail specimens from the Mica Shipwreck..............................................................78 

Figure C2. A copy of the original report of the metal analysis carried out on the copper 

sheathing specimens from the Mica Shipwreck.....................................................79 

Figure D1. Peter Hedderwick’s 1826 rigging plan for Glasgow, a schooner of 151 tons.. .....88 

Figure D2. The gaff rigged schooner Polly..............................................................................89 

Figure D3. The two-masted fore-and-aft rigged merchant schooner Hope .............................90 

Figure D4. An aging unidentified two-masted topsail schooner..............................................91 

Figure D5. Original builder’s plans for the topsail schooner Elizabeth Austen .....................92 

Figure D6. Lines of HMS Subtle, lost in a violent squall while pursuing an American 

privateer in the West Indies in 1812 ......................................................................93 

Figure D7. Hypothetical Mica shipwreck rigging reconstruction............................................94 

Figure D8. Selected bow area nomenclature............................................................................97 

Figure D9. Lower forward rigging nomenclature ....................................................................98 

Figure D10. Lower aft rigging nomenclature.............................................................................99 

Figure D11. Upper forward rigging nomenclature...................................................................101 

Figure D12. Upper aft rigging nomenclature...........................................................................102 

x 
LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

Table 1. Planned Objectives and Methodology for the Main Field Season of the Mica 

Shipwreck Project ..........................................................................14 

Table 2. Activities of the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project .................21 

Table 3. A Comparative Analysis of the Two-masted Schooners in Mica vessel's Size 

range for tonnage estimation.................................................................30 

Table A1. The Relative Electromotive Force of Selected Metals................................55 

Table C1. Original Lab Analysis Results for the Archaeological Samples from Nautical 

Contexts Presented in Tables C2, C3, C4 and C5..............................................80 

Table C2. A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Copper Sheathing Samples 

from Nautical Contexts .....................................................................84 

Table C3. A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Copper Alloy Sheathing 

Samples from Nautical Contexts..........................................................85 

Table C4. A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Lead Sheathing and Lead 

Artifacts from Nautical Contexts.........................................................85 

Table C5. Sources for the Metallic Sample/Information Sheets Provided in 

Tables C1, C2, C3 and C4...................................................................86 

Table E1. An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans .....................106 

xi 
1.0: INTRODUCTION 

The Mica Shipwreck site lies in the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi Canyon area, located 65 

kilometers (40 miles) southeast of the Mississippi River mouth. This is an area that experienced 

heavy maritime traffic especially from the late 17th century onwards, as the importance of the 

Mississippi River and the Louisiana ports increased within the new communication, 

transportation and trade network developing in North America at the time. 

The wreck was discovered on February 16, 2001, by Exxon-Mobil Corporation during a 

routine post-installation inspection of an oil and gas pipeline. The Minerals Management 

Service, the federal agency whose duties include managing offshore cultural resources with 

respect to oil and gas exploration and development, was notified upon discovery and further 

scientific visits were scheduled to determine the date and importance of the site. 

Subsequent archaeological visits and surveys conducted at the site produced data and 

artifacts that helped to determine the provenance and function of this ship. The depth of the site 

(807.7 meters or 2,650 feet) presented technical difficulties in surveying the wreck in detail. 

However, specialized equipment for work at depth was utilized and its use in archaeological 

surveying was tested. In many ways, this project has been an exercise of adapting existing deepsea survey equipment for archaeological use, and developing specialized tools to work in 

conjunction with the available technologies. 

The shipwreck remains are preserved to a length of approximately 19.8 meters (65 feet) 

and the hull lies on the bottom evenly on its keel (Figure 1). The vessel sits upright on the 

seafloor, approximately two meters (6.6 feet) high in the bow, and three meters (9.8 feet) in the 

stern. The distance between the stem and the sternposts is 20.5 meters (67 feet) along the keel. 

Based on these measurements, the overall length of the vessel is estimated to be 21.9 meters (72 

feet). The estimated original dimensions of the wreck and an examination of the general hull 

form suggest that the Mica vessel was most likely a two-masted vessel, most likely a schooner 

(see section 4.1.5. for identification of the rig). Research among similar sized vessels indicate 

that the ship was probably a 110-120 ton vessel (see section 3.6 for tonnage estimation). The 

interior of the vessel is covered by a thick layer of sediment that makes it difficult to observe the 

hull structure and the artifacts that may be preserved. No trace of upper works or deck structure 

survived. 

Analysis conducted on the wood samples collected from the hull indicate that the 

sacrificial hull-planking was eastern white pine, which suggests that the vessel was probably 

built along the Northeastern coast of North America (see Section 4.1.1 for details). While it is 

possible that this protective layer of planking may have been applied later on the ship, or the 

sampled portion may have been a repair section, it is more likely that the ship was built in the 

Northeast America. The general size and design of the ship, the use of the copper sheathing, and 

analysis carried out on the limited artifact assemblage suggest that the Mica vessel possibly dated 

to the first half of the 19th century (see Chapter 4 for dating). 

The initial reason for the development of the schooner rig configuration was to answer 

the demand for fast pleasure ships for European monarchs in the late 17th century (Marquardt 

2003: 13). Around the late 1820s and early 1830s, the schooner rig developed into what is 

1 
referred to as the topsail schooner configuration, which can be described as a blending of the two 

late seventeenth century gaff rigs: the standing gaff with the additional square topsail for the fore 

or schooner mast and the running gaff with boom for the mainmast (Marquardt 2003: 21). This 

configuration provided the ship with maximum speed and capacity options available at the time. 

Thus use of topsail schooners was subsequently adopted by naval and commercial shipbuilders 

and spread to the continent of America (Marquardt 2003:13-26). The fact that a topsail 

schooner could sail very close to the wind, needed a relatively smaller handling crew, and had 

considerable cargo capacity made it the most popular vessel for merchants, slavers, and 

privateers in addition to its naval use, especially by coastguard vessels and gunboats that also 

required high speed (Marquardt 2003:27-128). 

Based on an analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans for the first two 

decades of the 19th century (see Appendix 5), schooner rig was widely used in the Gulf of 

Mexico at the time. Designed and built in the Americas, these types of vessels filled a variety of 

roles, making them a valuable commodity as well as a practical method of transporting cargoes. 

The utility of these vessels contributed to their popularity placing them in high demand in the 

19th century as illustrated by the increasing numbers that were built (Piston 1988:166). 

Figure 1. A view of the Mica Shipwreck from the starboard side of the bow. Photomosaic by 

Dave Ball. 

For this study, data gleaned from the Mica Shipwreck is presented with comparisons of 

other similar vessels and archaeological investigations of sites in the Gulf of Mexico dating to 

the same period. An analysis of the Mica Shipwreck site improves our understanding of the 

commercial navigation in the Gulf of Mexico during the early 19th century. This is the period 

when the United States economy began to develop, and small vessels like the Mica shouldered 

the burden of initiating commercial connections between the burgeoning ports of the Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean and the Atlantic coast of the present-day United States. 

2 
Studying and researching the economic, military, social and cultural history of the Gulf 

of Mexico is necessary to accomplish the goal of placing the Mica Shipwreck in its proper 

context. However, because the Gulf is a large geographic area and the subject is expansive, the 

following chapters that describe the geographical, geophysical and historical background for the 

Mica site include the general outline of the major events in the area, but emphasize the aspects 

that are especially important for the northern Gulf coast and especially for the present-day 

Louisiana coast, and concentrate on the aspects of these subjects that directly affect the way this 

shipwreck site is analyzed. 

3 
2.0: GEOGRAPHICAL, GEOPHYSICAL 

AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

 The physical location of the Mica Shipwreck, in the Gulf of Mexico is the most 

significant factor in assessing its geographical, geophysical and historical context. In order to 

view this site within its environment, it is necessary to introduce the background information 

about the surrounding geographical and cultural landscape in a historical framework. 

 Geographical and geophysical conditions described below, as well as the information 

about prevalent wind and current patterns in the Gulf of Mexico summarized in the following 

section affected the development of settlements, and the navigation routes. While it is known 

that climatic variations and winter temperatures fluctuated on a predictable pattern every decade 

(data is available through late 19th century), the general wind and current patterns (in terms of 

direction and prevalence) have not changed significantly since the late 18th century (Slowey and 

Crowley 1995: 2345-2348). Thus, it is safe to assume that the general information summarized 

in sections 2.1. and 2.1.1. below represents the historic conditions as far back as late 18th 

century. 

2.1. Geographical and Geophysical Background 

The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed basin that covers about 1,813,000 sq km (ca. 

700,000 square miles). It stretches more than 1,770 km (1,100 miles) from west to east and 

about 1,290 km (800 miles) from north to south. The Sigsbee Deep (3,875 m /12,714 ft), the 

Gulf's deepest part, lies off the Mexican coast. The coast is generally characterized by low, 

sandy, and marshy lands with many lagoons and deltas, especially in the north where the coastal 

plains and the continental shelf are the widest (Bryant et al. 1991: 13). The major rivers that 

flow into the Gulf are the Mississippi, Alabama, Brazos, and Rio Grande. They annually 

discharge about 3,237,485 square kilometers (1,250,000 square miles) of water into the Gulf, 

which represents a body of water of about 2,330,013 cubic kilometers (559,000 cubic miles) 

(Bryant et al. 1991:13-20). 

2.1.1. Winds and Currents in the Gulf of Mexico 

The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed basin that opens into the Atlantic Ocean through 

the Yucatan Channel and the Florida Straits. The clockwise surface current known as the Loop 

Current is the dominant circulation, transporting warm Caribbean water to the north of the Gulf. 

In essence, the Loop Current is a result of the effects of the Yucatan Current, flowing from 

northern Honduras through the Yucatan Channel to the central eastern portion of the Gulf and 

the Florida Current, which flows out through the Florida Straits (Hoffmann and Worley 1986). 

Surface circulation is also affected by tides, winds, and freshwater inflow. 

With the exception of the summer months (e.g. June, July and August) a counter 

clockwise circulation dominates the Texas- Louisiana shelf (Cochrane and Kelly 1986). During 

the summer months, the coastal currents reverse, flowing northward along the lower Texas coast 

and eastward along the upper Texas and Louisiana coasts to Calcasieu Pass, Louisiana. Eastward 

flow on the outer shelf is weaker during the summer. The inner side of the shelf is characterized 

by a coastal flow driven by the easterly winds that carries the discharge from the Mississippi and 

5 
Atchafalaya rivers towards Mexico. There is an easterly counter flow along the outer shelf and 

shelf-break. 

The wind and current pattern of the Gulf determined the development of the navigation 

routes. Historic documentation suggests that Spanish navigators recognized the easterly flow 

along the outer shelf as early as 1519, and took advantage of it when sailing from Veracruz to the 

east of the Gulf (Salvador 1991: 2). The necessity to follow the loop current and to sail along the 

prevalent winds determined the course of the Spanish fleets. Ships entered the Gulf through the 

Yucatan Channel and rode the prevailing wind and current westward to the port of Veracruz. 

The nature of this navigation cycle is reflected in the trade patterns (See Section 2.2.1.). The 

return route of these early fleets usually followed the northern coast of the Gulf, and east into the 

Straits of Florida and the Bahama Channel. 

Summer months are characterized by a frequent commercial traffic in the Gulf. This 

navigation, especially in the northwest, is made possible by the prevalence of the easterly winds 

characterized by a southwesterly flow. This changes into a northeasterly direction in winter and 

the transition occurs between September and October. Scientific data shows that the winter 

storms can generate waves up to seven meters (McGrail and Carnes 1983). In Spanish 

documents, "Nortes" are mentioned due to their impact on Spanish fleets as early as 1566 

(Garrison et al. 1989). 

Tropical storms and hurricanes create the most extreme wave and current conditions in 

the Gulf. Generated either in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, or the Gulf itself, 

hurricanes regularly damage the Gulf shore during the months of June to November. Even 

though the dangers of sailing during the hurricane season were well known to captains and ship 

owners alike, the great profits to be acquired from a successful journey during the hurricane 

season often led them to take their chances. Sailing schedules for merchant ships in the 18th and 

19th centuries were not as strict as one might imagine. Sometimes, delay of a cargo, or other 

unforeseen impediments also inadvertently pushed departures into the hurricane season (Pearson 

and Hoffman 1995: 14). 

2.1.2. Brief History of Commercial Navigation in the Gulf of Mexico 

The coastal configuration, as well as the wind and current patterns in the Gulf of Mexico 

had to be mastered by the first explorers and subsequent mariners of the following centuries that 

engaged in the trade with the colonies around the basin. Construction and rigging configuration 

of the merchant vessels in this period between the 16th and the early 19th centuries prevented 

them from comfortably sailing into the wind. Thus, this knowledge of local winds, currents, 

storm patterns, and cartographical information was of crucial importance, not only because they 

helped safe sailing, but also because they dictated the navigation, and thus the development of 

the trade routes (Hoffman 1980). 

Commercial routes from the eastern coast of the Gulf to the west followed the wind 

directions but ran along the northern coast, and therefore against the Loop Current. Due to the 

annual occurrence of the hurricanes in specific times of the year, the bulk of this commercial 

traffic occurred between March and June. Commercial navigation during the winter was 

considered highly risky and avoided (Pearson and Hoffman 1995: 8-14). 

6 
2.1.2.1. Development of Navigation Routes in the Gulf 

First navigation and commercial transportation of goods on board sea-craft in the Gulf of 

Mexico began during the pre-Columbian era (Diaz del Castillo 1955; Davis 1984). Our 

knowledge regarding these early commercial navigation patterns is limited to a few finds and 

lacks precise details. However, written and archaeological evidence from the periods that follow 

the European discovery of the American continent are relatively complete. 

It is not clear who were the first Europeans to discover the Gulf of Mexico, but it is 

generally accepted that the exploration parties landed on the southeastern coast of the Gulf in the 

late 15th century. The first European to report the existence of a large body of water beyond 

Cuba was Sebastián de Ocampo, a Spaniard who circumnavigated Cuba in 1508-09 (Weddle 

1985). Subsequently, the Gulf served as a primary approach to the North American mainland. 

Following this route, the leader of the following expedition, in 1513, Juan Ponce De León 

became the first European to make landfall within the Gulf of Mexico. The most significant 

contribution of this exploratory cruise is that Ponce De León’s crew noted the existence of a 

strong current on the east coast of Florida, which represents the first record of the Gulf Stream 

(Gore 1992: 15). 

The next three voyages between 1517 and 1519, led by Francisco Hernández de Córdoba, 

Juan de Grijalva, and Hernán Cortés, respectively, were destined to the southern coast of the 

Gulf (Gore 1992: 22-23). In 1519, another expedition led by Don Alonzo Álvarez de Pineda 

sailed from Jamaica to explore the west coast of Florida and the northern coast of the Gulf of 

Mexico. The purpose of Álvarez de Pineda's voyage was to explore the coast between the 

discoveries of De León on the Florida peninsula and those made on behalf of Velázquez along 

the southern Gulf, and more specifically, to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean in this area 

(Weddle 1985). The map titled "Traza de Costas de Tierra Firme y las Tierras Nuevas," (1519) 

which is also known as the "Pineda Map," was a product of this journey. It is the first 

cartographic representation of the northern Gulf area, and the river named “Rio del Espiritu 

Santu” is likely to be the first representation of the Mississippi. On this map the coastline is 

described as "low-lying and subject to flooding." The navigators are warned against dangerous 

obstacles such as dunes, sandpits, bays, marshes, and oyster beds as well as the lack of secure 

anchorages along the coast. The information provided by the descriptions and the outline of the 

coastline provided by the map reflect the level of information that existed at the time. The map 

is located at Archivo de Indias in Seville, Spain, and the information summarized above is 

directly written on it. 

Explorations and the majority of navigation in this initial period of the Gulf’s commercial 

exploitation have mainly been carried out by the Spanish with the objective of exploring the 

commercial route along this coast, and to help the ships that used this route to transport treasure 

from Mexico and Peru to Spain. Understanding the geography was of crucial importance as this 

route took advantage of the Loop Current and southeasterly winds. Creating a detailed map of 

the possible anchorages along the route was also important to provide safe havens to these 

precious cargo carriers (Hoffman 1980). 

In addition to acquiring information about the route, the Spanish also wanted to explore 

the territory that lay to the north of the Gulf and its economic potential, but this did not become a 

7 
primary objective until the French colonization of Louisiana in 1699. French explorers and 

settlers of the northern Gulf coast, la Louisiane, were there for the sole purpose of exploiting the 

land and the commercial potential of the ports. Thus, exploration and mapping gained new 

importance and the charts were much more substantial and detailed than the earlier examples. 

An important historical event, La Salle’s attempt to establish a colony in the Mississippi delta in 

1684, generated renewed interest for both France and Spain; the Spanish now struggling to 

maintain control of this area and to explore the northern Gulf coast. Spanish voyages seeking La 

Salle's settlement led to the realization of the first complete circumnavigation of the Gulf by the 

Rivas-Iriarte expedition in 1686-87 (Weddle 1987: 139-142). 

It was not until 1719 that a precise map of the northern Gulf of Mexico was produced. 

French geographer Guillaume de L’Isle re-charted the area including the east Texas and 

Louisiana coasts and the southern Mississippi bayous. Another Frenchman, Bernard de la Harpe 

produced charts for the area from the Louisiana bayous to the Yucatan Peninsula. In 1742, 

Jacques Nicolas Bellin conducted a survey of the Louisiana coast, the course of the Mississippi 

River and Pensacola Bay. He published the results of this survey in 1754, in his map of the Gulf. 

Thus, by mid-18th century, these precise maps were available especially for the French ships that 

frequented the area (Gore 1992: 26). 

It is possible to generalize the ships used in this early period leading to the French 

colonization of the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. In the first category, are the large 

merchant ships -the most typical of which being the galleon- of long distance trade in bulk. The 

majority of the shipping in the Gulf in this period was on board Spanish vessels. Spain initiated 

a different system in the early 17th century, and instead of having a standing navy, they regulated 

the size of transatlantic merchant ships so that they could be used as warships when and if need 

arose. Spanish merchantmen generally sailed in convoys (flotas) and were capable of sailing 

without frequent stops for victuals. The second general category of ships frequently used in the 

Gulf in the 16th and 17th centuries are the small craft used for charting and exploration –the 

most typical of which being the caravel (Pearson and Hoffman 1995: 8-14). 

In summary, during the period between the first European discovery of the Gulf of 

Mexico and the development of the US interests in the Gulf, the main navigation routes consisted 

of (1) the Spanish convoy route between Vera Cruz and Havana, and (2) the French routes 

established after the early 18th century reaching the northern ports of New Orleans, Mobile and 

Biloxi. 

With the Peace of Paris, in 1763, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. This marked the end 

of French commercial and political presence in the area and led to a decrease in the number of 

French ships frequenting the Gulf ports. The new geopolitical situation in the Gulf included an 

increased Spanish presence, along with the European ships from Britain, France, and 

Netherlands. But the most important of all were the ships used and built by the emerging nation 

of the United States that began to frequent the Gulf ports (Gore 1992: 25). Development of US 

interests in the Gulf affected the dynamics of trade and navigation, and transformed the nature of 

commercial transactions as the new country grew, increased its territory and organized its inland 

commerce along the rivers, and along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. 

8 
2.1.3. Commercial Harbors and Ports of the Gulf in the 19th Century 

The major commercial ports of the early Spanish trade in the Gulf region were Vera Cruz 

and Havana. Vera Cruz, and its harbor, San Juan de Ulua, developed as the principal port for 

gold and silver extracted from the mines of central Mexico and the loot gathered by the 

conquistadors. Havana developed as a port along the treasure route through the Straits of Florida 

and became the principal assembly point for the New Spain and Terra Firma fleets. 

Ports to the north of the Gulf were mostly developed by the French, around natural 

harbors along the coastline. Figure 2 shows the locations of these settlements and the 

approximate and/or generally accepted dates for their establishment as commercial ports. 

Figure 2. Major commercial harbors around the Gulf of Mexico (with an emphasis on the north 

coast), with the generally accepted dates for their foundation. Information based on 

Gore 1992: 25. 

9 
The majority of these shallow ports were difficult to access by the larger commercial 

vessels. The geographical characteristics of the ports had an effect on the types of ships that 

were used in this area, and for the type of trade that involved the shipping of goods among the 

Gulf ports, as well as long distance trade between the Gulf and the Caribbean, Europe and North 

America. For example, large brigs that sailed to these ports were eventually replaced by smaller 

ones and schooners. There are several smaller types of vessels that developed from the specific 

requirements of these ports and the nature of the cargoes being traded. This aspect will be 

discussed in section 2.2.2. 

Furthermore, it was not until the realization of the economic potential of the Mississippi 

that the ports along the northern coast of the Gulf gained commercial importance. After La 

Salle's initial exploration, the flow of commercial goods to the Gulf coast began slowly and led 

to a gradual development of the ports that re-distributed these goods, and provided upriver, 

inland areas with European goods and raw materials in return. Increasing trade between the 

French, English, Spanish, and later the US, attracted pirates and privateers to prey on these 

cargoes that frequented the Gulf. 

2.2. Historical Background 

2.2.1. Geopolitical Situation, Economic Conditions, and Commercial Navigation in the Gulf 

of Mexico in the First Half of the 19th Century 

From a geopolitical point of view, 18th and 19th centuries constitute a period of transition 

for the countries around the Gulf of Mexico. The general political climate of early 18th century 

Europe is characterized by major developments with significant long-term consequences in 

North America and the Gulf of Mexico: the Enlightenment leading to the French revolution and, 

more importantly the American Revolution created a completely new environment. After the 

Seven Years’ War, Spanish power underwent a slow and steady decline both in Europe and in 

America, and especially the lands surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. The major reasons for this 

can be summarized as piracy, overextension of territories, and the debilitating economic effects 

of sustained warfare. With the Treaty of Paris (1763) Louisiana passed from France to Spain. 

Spain ceded the Florida parishes of Louisiana to the British in 1763, only to gain control over 

this territory again in 1783. Ultimately, the decline in power of Spain prevented the retention of 

the Florida Parishes and it was ceded, briefly to France, and then to the U.S. 

The period between the beginning of Spanish rule in Louisiana, (1763) which 

transformed the Gulf into a Spanish lake, and the addition of the Gulf-States into the United 

States (e.g. Louisiana in 1812, Mississippi in 1817, Alabama in 1819, Florida and Texas in 1845) 

is the most colorful period in the political history of the Gulf. The Expansion of the US to the 

south, to include the coastal territories, was a crucial one. By the early 1800’s the Mississippi 

River had assumed a dominant role in U.S. commerce, connecting the interior of the country to 

the Gulf and to the rest of the world via shipping lines accessible through the ports such as New 

Orleans, Mobile and Pensacola (Gore 1992: 45). In addition to the long-distance international 

trade that was conducted mainly by the British, coastal trade within the Gulf of Mexico also 

improved in this period (Gore 1992: 45). 

10 
The effects of the industrial revolution reached the Gulf of Mexico almost immediately. 

The establishment of the commercial networks and navigation routes in the basin, during this 

period during which the commercial activities in North America intensified, was mainly due to a 

few major industrial developments. Eli Whitney's Cotton gin was invented in 1793, and its 

widespread use enabled cotton farming to become more efficient and the farmers to profit 

largely. Now that the south had developed the farming of an economically efficient crop – to 

replace the revenue lost from the recessing tobacco production in the north – a farming system to 

ameliorate this production was necessary. Thus, the plantation system, which also originated in 

the tobacco economy of the 17th-century Chesapeake colonies, was adopted in the cotton and 

sugar growing lands to the north of the Gulf of Mexico, mainly, between 1790s and 1860 

(Rehder 1999: 54-55). 

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, these developments impacted navigation and 

maritime trade in the Gulf in two major ways. First, developing textile industries in the North of 

the U.S. and in Britain led to a substantial increase in the shipping volume from the Gulf region, 

and especially from the ports of New Orleans and Mobile. Second, the thriving cotton economy 

brought an extraordinary increase in the volume of slavery. Increasing numbers of slaves were 

needed to man the large-scale and labor-intensive plantations. Thus, these people became the 

new “cargo” of the ever-increasing number of ships frequenting the ports of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. More ports developed to accommodate lumber, grain, cotton, and sugar trade along the 

coasts of Louisiana, Florida and Texas. 

The two decades between 1830 and 1850 was a lucrative period for the merchant marine 

of the United States. In this period, there was an increased demand from the east coast and 

Europe for the cotton that grew along the northern coast of the Gulf, or reached the ports in this 

area via rivers. New navigation routes developed to form a shipping triangle connecting the Gulf 

ports to the ports on the northeast coast of North America and Europe (Garrison et al. 1989). 

In the first half of the 19th century, the products that were shipped down the Mississippi 

to New Orleans were exported to markets throughout the world. Ships frequented between the 

European ports including France, England, Prussia, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, as well as the 

major markets of the Caribbean, Mexico and South America and New Orleans. In addition, the 

major part of seaborne commercial traffic took place between ports in the United States coastal 

regions facing the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the Gulf coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi 

and Texas. Major exports from New Orleans consisted of food and grain that came down the 

Mississippi from the hinterlands to be shipped to the Caribbean and South America. Sugar and 

pork appear as the most valuable commodities exported to domestic ports, while cotton was 

largely exported to Europe and was the leading export by value in European markets (Redard 

1985). Archival sources indicate that in exchange for cotton and food, New Orleans imported 

what can mostly be categorized as "luxury goods": glassware, soap, textiles, hardware, and 

candles (Redard 1985). 

Additional historical data collected from the issues of the New Orleans Bee, a daily 

newspaper published in New Orleans between 1827 and 1925, provides a better understanding of 

the commercial traffic and the ships. The pattern of ship arrival and departures in 1828 (the year 

is roughly in the middle of the period of interest for the study of the Mica shipwreck, and a 

hurricane-free year) show that 42 percent of the ships that had a commercial cargo that arrived at 

11 
New Orleans were from U.S. ports on the Atlantic coast of North America (namely, Baltimore, 

Boston, Charleston, and the majority of them were from New York and Philadelphia), 27 

percent were from Europe (Amsterdam, Belfast, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Le Havre, and 

Liverpool), and 15 percent were from Caribbean ports (Havana and Port au Prince). Sixteen 

percent of the incoming ships came from ports within the Gulf, 13 percent were from ports to the 

south and east (Campeche, Tampico and Vera Cruz) and only three percent were from the north 

(Mobile). As for the departures, 46 percent of the ships returned to the ports on the Atlantic 

coast of North America (Baltimore, Boston, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, and 

Richmond), 19 percent brought an overwhelming majority of cotton cargoes to European ports 

(Le Havre and Liverpool) and nine percent returned to Havana and Port au Prince. Twenty six 

percent of the ships returned to the ports around the Gulf (11 percent to Mobile and Pensacola 

and 15 percent to Vera Cruz, Tampico, Tabasco and other minor destinations in Mexico). In all, 

the numbers from the arrival and departure records are in accordance with the historical 

information. Most of the commercial traffic was between Northeastern U.S. ports, and 

especially New York and Philadelphia. Overseas destinations made up the second largest 

category, and the traffic among the Gulf ports was the next to follow. Markets along the 

southern coast of the Gulf appear to have sent more ships into New Orleans, and those ships 

seem to go through Florida ports on their return journeys, which is surprising as they would be 

sailing against the Loop Current. 

A random sampling of ship arrivals and departures between 1820 and 1850, which were 

advertised or printed in the New Orleans Bee, reveals that while about 50 percent of the ship 

types were not specified, about 60 percent of the specified ships were brigs, and 20 percent were 

specified as schooners. The remaining 20 percent of the ships were larger types, such as 

barques, and smaller ships. 

12 
3:0 THE MICA SHIPWRECK PROJECT: OBJECTIVES, 

METHODOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY 

3.1. Description of the Archaeological Site 

 The Mica Shipwreck site is 810.4 meters (2660 feet) deep and is located in the 

Mississippi Canyon Area in the Central Gulf of Mexico. Measurements taken during the various 

visits to the site show the wreck to have an overall length of approximately 20.4 meters (67 feet). 

The Mica Shipwreck is bisected by a pipeline (about 20 cm/ 8 in diameter). The site is in 

exceptional state of preservation, with the exception of the damage caused by the accidental 

installation of the pipeline. 

The pipeline has almost perfectly bisected the vessel across the midships section. The 

pressure exerted by the pipeline on the longitudinal members of the ship caused the bow and 

stern of the vessel to lift approximately one foot above the sediment (Jones 2004: 14). Although 

the extremities of the ship remains were lifted off the bottom, no structural timbers of the ship 

were broken, possibly due to the waterlogged, and thus flexible nature of the wood. However, 

the port and the starboard sides of the vessel, at the locations where the pipe is exerting weight 

on these timbers, are splayed outward. The external starboard aft quarter of the vessel represents 

the best-preserved portion of the site. In this location, large sections of intact copper sheathing is 

still covering the hull planking. 

A detailed study of the inside of the hull and its contents is hindered by the nature of the 

seafloor in this area: the Mica Shipwreck Site lies on a bed of fine silt, a typical feature of this 

part of the Gulf coast. The sediment particles are continuously discharged from the Mississippi 

River into the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, the hull of the Mica shipwreck, which sits upright on 

its keel, is completely filled with fine sediment, and the continued discharge of silt decreases 

visibility. During the field investigation, it was observed that sediment that had already been 

deposited on the wreck is easily disturbed, and could remain suspended for several minutes 

(Jones 2004: 5). While the current direction seemed variable, it was usually under half a knot 

and did not greatly assist in improving working visibility and general working conditions. 

3.2. Summary of Fieldwork Activities Prior to the Main Field Season 

 The Mica Shipwreck project was carried out in several field seasons. The sections below 

describe the goals, activities and the results of these field seasons, followed by a basic 

description of the tools and technical means employed to collect and recover this information. In 

summary, the initial scientific visit to the site identified the site and determined its scientific and 

historic value. Subsequent visits and fieldwork conducted resulted in the information presented 

in section 3.6., and analyzed in section 4 below. 

3.2.1. Research Goals and Scientific Objectives 

The Texas A&M University Department of Oceanography, Deep Tow Research Group 

(DTRG) and Nautical Archaeology Program (NAP) had originally planned to carry out the study 

of this shipwreck in two phases. General goals, objectives and methodology of these phases are 

presented in Table 1 below. 

13 
Sections 3.3. and 3.4. describe the actual work and the equipment used for the project. 

Differences between the original work design submitted to the MMS and the actual tasks carried 

out during the fieldwork are due to equipment availability and technical failures of certain 

components. This report will not include a discussion of technical failures, problems and 

malfunctions encountered during the field season. Instead, the accomplishments and the results 

will be described, discussed and analyzed in detail in sections 3.4. and 4. 

Table 1 

Planned Objectives and Methodology for the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project 

(Source: Internal document titled: "Proposal to Use the RV Carolyn Chouest and the Submarine 

NR1 to study the Mississippi Canyon Shipwreck (MC001)." Pp. 1-3.) 

Scientific Objectives Methodology 

Phase I Task 1: Deep Tow imaging system will be 

deployed from the RV Carolyn Chouest to 

survey a 180 square kilometer area centered 

on the shipwreck site. 

Objective: To determine the limits of the 

archaeological site. 

The sonar system will be set for a 

1000 meter swath with 50% overlap 

on adjacent survey transects spaced 

750 meters apart. 

Estimated time: 5 days 

Phase II Task 1: NR1 will survey a 1 square kilometer 

area centered on the wreck site prior to 

excavation. 

Objective: Verifying the limits of the 

archaeological site. 

High-resolution side-scan sonar 

array, part of technical equipment of 

the NR1 will be employed. 

Estimated time: 1/2 day 

Task 2: Collection of photographic data of the 

wreck site and immediate surroundings 

Documentation of the site and 

possibly creation of a photomosaic 

map, using NR1 cameras. 

Estimated time: 1/2 day 

14 
Table 1 

Planned Objectives and Methodology for the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project 

(continued) 

(Source: Internal document titled: "Proposal to Use the RV Carolyn Chouest and the Submarine 

NR1 to study the Mississippi Canyon Shipwreck (MC001)." Pp. 1-3.) 

Scientific Objectives Methodology 

Phase II 

(contd.) 

Task 3: A venturi dredging system will be 

deployed from the NR1 to excavate portions 

of the interior hull in the bow, stern and along 

the mishaps section of the wreck. 

The venturi dredge system will be 

deployed with the NR1 manipulator 

arm, requiring the vessel to keep 

station above the shipwreck site. 

Small artifacts collected in the 

dredge system will be stored in 

"baskets" integrated into the dredge 

system to allow for the periodic 

segregation of archaeological 

material into discreet units. 

Estimated time for tasks 3, 4, 5 and 

6 (total): 5 days 

Task 4: An ROV will be deployed from the 

NR1 during excavation to capture small 

artifacts not collected in the dredge system. 

TBD 

Task 5: 15 test pits (about 50 cm deep) will be 

excavated around the exterior of the site to 

determine the extent of the artifact scatter 

The venturi dredge system will be 

used for this task. 

Estimated time for tasks 3, 4, 5 and 

6 (total): 5 days 

Task 6: recovery of a section of the sternpost 

of the wreck, along with miscellaneous wood 

samples from the keel, keelson, frames and 

other structural elements. 

NR1- manipulator arm. 

Estimated time for tasks 3, 4, 5 and 

6 (total): 5 days 

15 
3.2.2. First Scientific Visit to the Site 

The Mica Shipwreck site was first visited by an archaeological team from the Minerals 

Management Service on 23 February 2001. Dr. Jack Irion, Dr. Richard Anuskiewicz, and Mr. 

David Ball, from the Social Sciences Unit, mobilized on 23 February 2001, and investigated the 

wreck using a work-class ROV. The major outcome of this initial visit was the retrieval of wood 

and metal samples from the hull of the shipwreck. The samples consisted of five small pieces of 

metallic sheathing, several fragments of wood from the outermost layer of planking, and a large 

lead hawse-pipe. A detailed visual documentation of the site was also performed for future 

analysis. 

Analysis conducted on the wood samples indicated that the material used for the 

sacrificial planking, where the samples were collected, was northern white pine, an American 

species that grows widely in eastern North America (for details of wood analysis see section 

4.1.1). After further analysis of the visual data and an initial inspection of the copper samples, 

the Minerals Management Service team identified the vessel as a ship that sank in the first half of 

the 19th century and one of historical significance, potentially eligible to be listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Because the site had significant historic value, the Minerals Management Service 

formulated four options for the protection of the site: (1) Lifting and re-routing the pipeline 

around the wreck to prevent further damage to the site; (2) Constructing a sandbag bridge over 

the wreck; (3) Cutting and re-routing the pipeline around the wreck; (4) Leaving the pipeline in 

place, and conducting a limited data recovery program for an archaeological study of the site 

(Anuskiewicz et al. 2002: 80). 

The depth of the wreck, engineering difficulties involved with working at this depth in 

order to re-route or elevate the pipeline without causing further damage to the site, and a 

comparison of the cost figures involved with each option indicated that the most feasible option 

was to conduct a data recovery program. Funding for the project was supplied by the pipeline 

operator under the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

469-469c-2) also known as the Moss-Bennett Act, which allows government agencies to collect 

funds from a private source to apply towards salvage archaeology. 

Upon developing a research design, the Minerals Management Service determined that 

the data recovery program would require the use of a suitable ROV or submersible (1) to 

excavate a representative portion of the interior of the wreck, (2) recover diagnostic artifacts, (3) 

excavate up to 15 test units outside the wreck to determine if a scattering of artifacts exists 

outside the wreck, and (4) obtain high quality video and digital images for full documentation of 

the site (Anuskiewicz et al. 2002: 80-81). 

The Minerals Management Service then contacted Texas A&M University about entering 

in a joint partnership to investigate the site. Scientists from the Department of Oceanography 

and archaeologists from the Nautical Archaeology Program in the Department of Anthropology 

worked together to draft a cooperative agreement with the Minerals Management Service. The 

joint proposal called for the investigation and possible partial excavation of the Mica shipwreck. 

The proposal recommended the use of several sophisticated research tools designed specifically 

16 
for use in the deep ocean, including the United States Navy’s nuclear-powered research 

submarine, NR-1, as well as Texas A&M University’s Deep-Tow underwater remote sensing 

system. The plan also called for the use of several remotely operated vehicles, tasked 

specifically with photographing and retrieving selected artifacts. The proposal was reviewed and 

accepted by the Minerals Management Service, and the Texas A&M University Research 

Foundation, which administered the accounts related to the Mica shipwreck excavation. 

3.2.3. Second Scientific Visit to the Site 

C&C Technologies of Lafayette, Louisiana, performed a survey of the shipwreck area 

using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV). The torpedo-shaped un-tethered robot 

surveyed the wreck flying over the site at regular width intervals and at a preset altitude (Figure 

3). The goal of the survey was to determine the extent of the shipwreck site and detect any 

geohazards that might complicate the investigation (Figure 4). 

Figure 3. Survey route of the Hugin Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. The vehicle was 

equipped with multi-beam and side scan sonar systems (Image courtesy of C&C 

Technologies). 

17 
Data collected with the C&C Technologies AUV system provided a detailed image of the 

seafloor surrounding the Mica Shipwreck but did not provide any further diagnostic information 

about the site itself. The survey did, however, show that there was no significant component of 

the site in the immediate area that was not associated with the main area of wreckage adjacent to 

the pipeline. 

Figure 4. Side scan sonar image of the Mica shipwreck (Image courtesy of C&C Technologies). 

3.3. Scientific Investigation Tools Used in the Main Field Season 

3.3.1. Underwater Positioning 

Underwater positioning for the NR-1 was provided by an ultra-short baseline (USBL) 

acoustic tracking system, coupled with a doppler-velocity log (DVL) on board the submarine. 

This provided highly accurate positional data when the vessel was within 180 meters (about 600 

feet) of the seafloor, however during the descent to the Mica shipwreck site, the NR-1 would 

dead-reckon from a logged GPS position captured while surfaced. The surface support ship 

would track the NR-1 by USBL during their descent to the seafloor and once on the bottom, the 

submarine would update its calculated position via acoustic telephone. While working in 

proximity to the seafloor the NR-1 utilized the DVL to calculate velocity, altitude, depth, and 

relative motion from their most recently updated GPS/USBL position. 

18 
3.3.2. NR-1 

The main tool used for the study of the Mica Shipwreck site was the nuclear powered 

submarine NR-1 (Figure 5). The submarine was designed, built, and operated by the United 

States Navy. The 45.72 meter (150 foot) submarine was launched in 1969 and is capable of 

diving to 914.4 meters (3000 feet). It has numerous unique features that make it a valuable asset 

to marine archaeologists. The submarine is equipped with a large manipulator arm and 14 digital 

video cameras that have zoom, pan and tilt features. Numerous lights are attached to the hull of 

the submarine, providing ample illumination in the otherwise pitch-black environment. There is 

a work module attached to the external hull of the submarine, located immediately in front of the 

manipulator arm, which contains various tools. These tools are used by the manipulator arm, and 

include soil coring devices as well as gripping and cutting attachments. There are three view 

ports on the lower bow surface of the hull, directly behind the manipulator arm. From this 

vantage point it is possible to observe the actions of the manipulator arm as well as directly 

observe the wreck site without the use of cameras. 

Figure 5. The United States Navy Submarine NR-1 surfaces during 

the investigation (Photograph by Toby Jones). 

19 
3.3.3. SSV Carolyn Chouest

SSV Carolyn Chouest is the surface support vessel for NR-1 (Figure 6). The 72.5 meter 

(238 foot) vessel has a beam of 15.9 meters (52 feet) and a draft of 5.2 meters (17 feet). The 

surface vessel tows NR-1 between work areas, as well as serving as a floating supply warehouse 

and quarters for the extra crewmembers. During the Mica shipwreck investigation, the scientists 

were housed in staterooms on the SSV Carolyn Chouest, and used this vessel as the main work 

platform. 

Figure 6. SSV Carolyn Chouest, the surface support vessel for NR-1. 

The vessel was docked at Pensacola Naval Air Station, 

Pensacola, Florida (Photograph by Toby Jones). 

20 
3.4. Activities of the Main Field Season 

 Activities of the main field season will be presented and described in Table 2 below, 

followed by a discussion of results and an overview of the information gathered. Sections 4 and 

5 concentrate on a detailed archaeological discussion and interpretation of the results presented 

in sections 3.4. and 3.5. 

Table 2 

Activities of the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project 

Archaeologist Date Activities and observations Methodology/technical 

information 

24 July 

2002 

Research vessel departed 

Biloxi, Mississippi. 

Toby Jones 24 July 

2002 

NR-1 re-located the shipwreck 

site 

Toby Jones 24 July 

2002 

Data required to create a side 

scan mosaic of the site was 

collected. 

A grid was established 

to maintain necessary 

coverage. Highresolution 600 kHz 

side scan sonar images 

of the wreck site were 

collected from an 

altitude of 4.6 meters 

(15 feet) above the 

seafloor. 

Toby Jones 24 July 

2002 

Close examination of the 

artifacts, copper sheathing, 

nailing patterns, a search for 

makers'-marks on the copper 

sheaths, and a general study of 

other construction features of 

the hull. 

Toby Jones 25 July 

2002 

Inspection of a side scan sonar 

target near the main shipwreck 

site, which appeared to be 

modern debris. 

Examination of the 

object performed using 

the NR1 cameras. 

Toby Jones 25 July 

2002 

NR-1 surfaced and returned 

the scientists to the Carolyn 

Chouest for a meeting 

regarding the findings, and to 

make decisions about how to 

proceed. 

Duration of the first 

dive: 21 hours and 13 

minutes. 

[Decision to surface: 

poor visibility] 

21 
Table 2 

Activities of the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project (continued) 

Archaeologist Date Activities and observations Methodology/technical 

information 

Toby Jones 25 July 

2002 

Second dive of the NR1 to the 

site. 

Duration of the second 

dive: 3 hours. 

[Short dive due to 

technical reasons] 

Richard 

Anuskiewicz 

26 July 

2002 

Third dive of the NR1 to the 

site. 

Richard 

Anuskiewicz 

26 July 

2002 

Visual inspection of artifacts 

and recovery attempts. 

Manipulator arm on 

the NR-1 was used to 

nudge artifacts, and 

recover them. 

However, the 

manipulator arm is not 

designed for such 

detailed work and this 

task was aborted. 

Richard 

Anuskiewicz 

26 July 

2002 

Investigation of the wooden 

elements of the wreck beneath 

the sediment. 

NR-1's forward 

maneuvering thrusters 

were used to gently 

clear the sediment on 

site. 

Richard 

Anuskiewicz 

26 July 

2002 

NR-1 surfaced and returned 

the scientists to the Carolyn 

Chouest.

Duration of the third 

dive: 16 hours. 

[Decision to surface: 

poor visibility] 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Closer inspection of the hull 

and the stone ballast in the 

hold. Keelson bolts were 

observed in the areas adjacent 

to the pipeline. 

A systematic 

documentation of the 

site was made possible 

as the NR1 has flown 

over the site from the 

stern to the bow, 

allowing for the 

inspection of the 

necessary details. 

22 
Table 2 

Activities of the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project (continued) 

Archaeologist Date Activities and observations Methodology/technical 

information 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Visible artifacts in the hold 

were metal spikes that may 

have been loose in the ship, or 

may have fallen out of 

disintegrated structural 

components of the hull and the 

base of a glass bottle and a 

rod-like object that may have 

been part of a chain-plate. 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Rigging elements: deadeye 

strap on the port side + two 

chain-plates on the starboard 

side were photographed in the 

bow area near the cant frames. 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Structural elements: large 

structural timber that may 

have been part of the keelson. 

This section of the keelson did 

survive around a copper bolt 

that prevented its biological 

degradation. 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Attempt to recover the upper 

end of the sternpost, including 

a gudgeon. 

The post was removed, 

and allowed to fall on 

the bottom, which was 

than picked up using 

the NR-1's 

manipulator arm. 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

Due to a technical problem, 

the manipulator arm of the 

NR-1 failed during the ascent 

of the submarine, causing it to 

lose its grip on the upper end 

of the sternpost. The artifact 

sank back to the bottom. 

The technical team 

was unable to repair 

the problem, and 

recover this piece of 

the sternpost. 

Duration of the fourth 

dive: 15 hours. 

[Decision to surface: 

poor visibility] 

23 
Table 2 

Activities of the Main Field Season of the Mica Shipwreck Project (continued) 

Archaeologist Date Activities and observations Methodology/technical 

information 

Kevin Crisman 27 July 

2002 

The mechanical failure of the 

NR-1's manipulator, coupled 

with the destruction of the 

ROV due to technical 

malfunctions, left our team 

without means of recovering 

artifacts from the wreck site. 

Considering that enough visual 

and acoustic data was already 

collected, fieldwork was 

concluded. 

3.5. Fourth Scientific Visit to the Site 

In January 2003, Deep Marine Technology, Incorporated, an offshore services company 

based in Houston, Texas, donated four days of ship time to Texas A&M University to visit the 

Mica Shipwreck and complete the previous year’s work. The surface support vessel Rylan T, a 

MaxRover ROV, and several trained pilots were made available along with an artifact retrieval 

basket designed, built, and deployed by Deep Marine Technology. The company also brought 

along a DeepWorker one-man submersible. 

The site was surveyed by the ROV. It was covered with approximately a 5 centimeter 

(1.96 inches) thick layer of sediment since the last visit, six months prior. Two rows of copper 

spikes, protruding 0.15 meters (0.5 feet) from the seafloor, were found approximately eight 

meters (26.3 feet) west of the wreck, running parallel along the port edge. The spikes could have 

been used to fasten external hull planking or wales to the upper hull frames (Jones 2004: 48). An 

entire sheet of metallic sheathing from the port midships section of the ship was selected for 

recovery, but the ROV only succeeded in removing a small sample, with no visible identification 

marks. The MaxRover vehicle surveyed the port stern quarter of the vessel, and the 

archaeologists noted that the metallic sheathing had been peeled away, making it easier to 

remove with the manipulator arm. However, before the vehicle could obtain a sample of 

sheathing in that area, the main power supply cable failed, causing the pilots to lose telemetry 

with the MaxRover. The remotely operated vehicle was winched to the surface, but the artifact 

retrieval basket, containing samples of the metallic sheathing, remained adjacent to the port side 

of the hull on the seafloor (Jones 2004: 48).

24 
3.6. Results 

The bow of the ship is easily recognizable by the presence of the cant frames (Figure 7). 

The frames protrude through an estimated two meters (6.6. feet) of sediment that fills the 

foremost part of the hull and seem to be in a poor condition due to the damage caused by marine 

organisms. The lead hawse pipe seen in figure 15 and described in detail in section 4.1.3 was 

retrieved from this area. 

Figure 7. Bow area of the Mica shipwreck, note the cant frames. No scale. (Photograph courtesy 

of the United States Minerals Management Service and ExxonMobil Corporation). 

The outside part of the stem of the ship is copper sheathed, easily identified by virtue of 

the green patina it developed over time. Each sheet of metal overlapped and was fastened to the 

hull with copper nails or tacks that also had a dull green patina. There were nails fastened in 

evenly spaced diagonal rows across the face of each piece of sheathing (Figure 8). 

25 
Figure 8. Detail of the starboard stern quarter of the Mica shipwreck. Note the dense nailing 

around the edges and the quincunx pattern in the middle of each sheet. No scale. 

(Photograph courtesy of the United States Minerals Management Service and 

ExxonMobil Corporation). 

In the midship section, the frames and attached planking appear to have fallen away and 

out, but still are attached to the keel at their bases (Figure 9). The planks of the midship section 

reveal an interesting feature of the ship: a second layer of planking between the standard 

planking that was nailed to the frames and the metallic sheathing. This layer, known as sacrificial 

planking, is generally found on vessels that were not sheathed with metal. The apparent use of 

two different types of sheathing on the same vessel seems redundant, and there are no other 

known shipwreck sites exhibiting this strange practice. However, it is conceivable that the 

widening use of copper sheathing on ships might have inspired the owners of this vessel to adopt 

this new technology perhaps to encourage potential customers, merchants and passengers. In 

this period, the fact that a ship was copper sheathed was advertised as an indication of its 

sturdiness, and it is conceivable that the copper sheathed ships had fewer difficulties finding 

more profitable cargos for carriage (see appendix 6:0). 

26 
Figure 9. Profile view of the port stern quarter of the Mica shipwreck. The thin sacrificial 

planking can be seen attached to the copper sheathing. The laying of the pipeline 

caused the gunwales of the vessel to spread outward near amidships (Photograph 

courtesy of the United States Minerals Management Service and ExxonMobil 

Corporation). 

After a few hours of work with the submarine NR-1, and particularly its forward 

maneuvering thrusters, enough sediment was removed from the shipwreck site to uncover frames 

and possibly ceiling planking in the section of the shipwreck pushed down by the weight of the 

pipeline. A line of keelson bolts was also visible running down the centerline of the vessel near 

amidships. The bolts appeared to fasten the degraded keelson to the floor timbers and keel. A 

fragment of the keelson was visible immediately aft of the pipeline along the centerline of the 

wreck. Moving aft, a pile of large spikes, probably copper alloy, were seen near the port stern 

quarter of the wreck. The spikes, which were too large to attach metallic sheathing to the hull, 

might have fastened the exterior planking to the frames. The pile is likely to have been formed 

by the slow disintegration of a frame that contained numerous spikes (Figure 10). 

The stern section of the vessel is also sheathed in copper. The most important features in 

this section were the sternpost, two gudgeons, and skeg. There was no evidence of the rudder 

itself, which might have become unattached during the sinking of the ship. The rudder may be in 

the general area of the shipwreck site but the brief search for it did not yield any results and the 

soft seafloor sediment may conceal it from view permanently. The top portion of the sternpost 

was removed, leaving the wreck site with one intact gudgeon and the skeg available for future 

research. Unfortunately, a technical malfunction of the submarine led to the loss of the portion 

that was removed from the site for analysis purposes. The technical malfunction caused the 

manipulator arm to loose its grip on the sampled wooden component, which sank to the bottom 

and was not recovered. 

27 
Figure 10. A sketch drawing of the Mica shipwreck site showing the approximate positions of 

the artifacts and major features of the wreck site. (Sketch drawing - no scale. Sketch 

by Ayse Devrim Atauz). 

The thick layer of sediment lining the inside of the shipwreck made it difficult to observe 

any remains of the ship's rigging. There were numerous objects resembling blocks scattered 

28 
about the surface of the wreck, however. It is possible that these were clams or concretions, or 

other objects covered-over by sediment. During the exploration of the site, no rigging elements 

or specific evidence of rig type or sail arrangement were identified or recovered. However, the 

positions of the masts could be identified through a study of chain-plates and deadeye straps. 

Three possible groups of chain-plates and deadeye straps were found, one on the port side of the 

wreck just aft of amidships and one on either side of the vessel several meters aft of the bow, 

indicating that the vessel had at least two masts (Figure 11). Since no sign of guns, gun ports, or 

other armament was discovered, it is safe to assume that the Mica vessel was a merchant ship. 

Sailing merchantmen of this period, and of this particular tonnage (110-120 tons - see below), 

were likely to be rigged as schooners. Based on the positions of the preserved rigging elements 

on the hull, we identified the ship as a schooner (see section 4.1.5.). The reason the majority of 

small to medium tonnage merchant vessels preferred this type of rigging is due to the relatively 

small size of the crew required to operate the sails and the maneuverability provided by this sail 

configuration in the hazardous coastal waters of the Gulf (Chapelle 1935: 133). 

Figure 11. Chain-plate or deadeye strap seen aft of amidships on the port side. No scale. 

(Photograph courtesy of the United States Minerals Management Service and 

ExxonMobil Corporation). 

29 
As mentioned in the introduction, the shipwreck remains are preserved to a length of 

approximately 19.8 meters (65 feet). Based on this measurement, the overall length of the vessel 

is estimated to be 21.9 meters (72 feet). Table 3 shows a list of ships about the same size as the 

Mica Shipwreck, selected from the Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Two-masted schooners between 65' and 75' of length were selected for review, based on the size 

of the shipwreck remains and other information gathered through analysis of rigging elements. 

Based on this comparative data, it is possible to estimate that the Mica vessel was likely to have 

been a 110-120 ton ship, based on the calculation of an average of similar sized and rigged 

vessels. 

Table 3 

A Comparative Analysis of Two-masted Schooners in the Mica Vessel's Size Range 

for Tonnage Estimation Purposes. 

Data from: Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana: Vols. I-IV. 

Date Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Rig 

1804 Alleghany schooner Pittsburg PA Pittsburg PA 104 72' 9" 20' 9' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1812 

American 

Hero schooner 

Wareham 

MA Hallowell MA 128 73' 23' 8' 11.5"

1 deck, 

2 masts

1814 Ann schooner 

Cohasset 

MA Cohasset MA 91 67' 3" 19' 9" 7' 11" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 Ann schooner 

Portsmouth 

NH Portsmouth NH 86 66.8' 17.6' 8.4' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1818 Arringdon schooner 

Gardiner 

MA Hallowell MA 110 70' 21' 6" 8' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1796 Bee schooner Norfolk VA Newburyport MA 75 66' 9" 20' 1" 6' 6.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1807 Betsey schooner 

Fairhaven 

PA Saco MA 83 65' 6.5" 21' 1" 7' 1" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1807 Betsey schooner 

Barnstable 

MA Barnstable MA 94 67' 10" 19' 11" 

8' 

10.25" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1803 Betsy schooner 

Wareham 

MA Scituate MA 74 65' 3.5" 29' 5" 6' 6.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1805 Caty Ann schooner New Orleans Lyme CN 133 70' 10" 21' 2" 10' 4" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

na Celeste schooner New Orleans na 131 68' 6" 20' 6" 10' 10" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1806 Centurion schooner New Orleans Saybrook CN 133 80' 9" 20' 9' 7" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1814 Chance schooner New Orleans Manchester MA 104 70' 19' 10" 8' 7" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 Charles schooner Salem MA Westbrook MA 109 68' 4" 21' 5.5" 8' 9.25"

1 deck, 

2 masts

1806 Charlotte schooner New Orleans Norfolk Co. VA 100 70' 6" 20' 4" 8' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

30 
Table 3 

A Comparative Analysis of Two-masted Schooners in the Mica Vessel's Size Range 

for Tonnage Estimation Purposes (continued). 

Data from: Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana: Vols. I-IV. 

Date Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Rig 

1804 Conquest schooner Pittsburg PA Pittsburg PA 112 68' 20' 4" 9' 5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1814 Criterion schooner New Orleans

Dorchester Co. 

MD 76 67' 9" 20' 6" 6' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1819 Cygnet schooner 

Hallowell 

MA Pittston MA 135 72' 10" 22' 6" 9' 9" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

na Dolores schooner New Orleans na 123 75' 8" 21' 8' 10.5"

1 deck, 

2 masts

1805 Enterprize schooner 

Hampden 

MA Hampden MA 99 71' 8" 21' 3" 7' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 

Farmers 

Fancy schooner 

Richmond 

VA Cabbin Pt. VA 147 75' 8" 24' 1" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1813 Favorite schooner 

Worchester 

Co. MD Glastonbury CN 102 68' 21' 9" 8' 2" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1810 Flora schooner New Orleans Duxbury MA 141 72' 10" 21' 10" 10' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1816 Free Town schooner Boston MA Bristol MA 116 72' 11" 22' 8" 8' 2.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1798 

George 

Clinton brig New Orleans New York NY 97 66' 2" 21' 8" 8' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1811 Good Hope schooner 

Charleston 

SC 

Dorchester Co. 

MD 116 72' 22' 9" 8' 5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1801 Hannah schooner 

Newburypor

t MA Frankfort MA 111 65' 4" 20' 10' 

2 

decks, 

2 masts

na Huntress schooner 

New York 

NY na 128 70' 8" 22' 9" 9' 5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1818 James Monroe schooner 

Sandwich 

MA Sandwich MA 116 70' 21' 6.5" 9' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1819 Little William schooner Boston MA Bangor MA 121 72' 4" 22' 1" 8' 10" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1804 Louisiana schooner New Orleans Baltimore MD 74 70' 6" 22' 4" 5' 7" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 

Mary and 

Eliza schooner Boston MA Bangor MA 82 65' 2" 19' 6.5" 7' 6.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 Mediterranean schooner New Orleans

Dorchester Co. 

MD 75 70' 6" 20' 6' 2" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

na Mississippi schooner New Orleans na 72 68' 3" 17' 8" 6' 9" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1816 Morgiana schooner 

Duxbury 

MA Duxbury MA 120 73' 10" 21' 9" 8' 7.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1815 Mount Vernon schooner New Orleans St. Mary Co. MD 65 65' 18' 2" 6' 4" 

Flush 

Deck, 2 

Masts 

31 
Table 3 

A Comparative Analysis of Two-masted Schooners in the Mica Vessel's Size Range 

for Tonnage Estimation Purposes (continued). 

Data from: Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana: Vols. I-IV. 

Date Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Rig 

1818 Mulberry schooner 

Annapolis 

MD West River MD 75 71' 19' 6" 6' 2" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1810 Ohio schooner Beverly MA Ohio Co. VA 109 71' 3" 21' 2" 8' 5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1801 President schooner 

New York 

NY Surrey MA 98 69' 2" 22' 7' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1818 Ranger schooner 

Hallowell 

MA Pittston MA 123 73' 21' 6.5" 9' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1800 Rebecca schooner New Orleans Mathews Co. VA 120 68' 7" 20' 9.5" 9' 11" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1817 Retrieve schooner 

Hallowell 

MA Hallowell MA 102 66' 7" 21' 4" 8' 4" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1811 Sally schooner 

Philadelphia 

PA Steuben MA 77 65' 3" 20' 5.5" 6' 9.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1805 Saturn schooner New Orleans Marshfield MA 107 66' 11" 20' 2.5" 9' 2.5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1814 Solon schooner Boston MA 

North Yarmouth 

MA 93 69' 11" 20' 7" 7' 5" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

na Sperry Baker schooner New Orleans na 90 65' 3" 18' 8" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1795 

Suckey and 

Polly schooner New OrleansJerusalem VA 67 57' 18' 7' 9" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1817 Three Brothers schooner 

Monhegan 

MA Monhegan MA 79 65' 19' 6" 7' 2.25"

1 deck, 

2 masts

1812 Three Sisters schooner 

Snow Hill 

MD Worcester Co. MD 73 65' 19' 5.75" 6' 8.75"

1 deck, 

2 masts

na Two Sisters schooner New Orleans na 119 67' 6" 20' 9" 9' 11" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1816 Two Sisters schooner Boston MA Westbrook MA 130 66' 21' 8' 6" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1802 Union schooner 

Dartmouth 

MA Barnstable MA 94 68' 20' 10" 7' 10.5"

1 deck, 

2 masts

1811 Venus schooner 

New York 

NY Woodbridge NJ 111 66' 4" 18' 11" 10' 2" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1812 Washington schooner 

Charleston 

SC Pittstown MA 149 75' 6" 23' 10.5" 9' 9" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1807 William schooner Newport RI Frankfort MA 127 75' 6" 22' 9" 8' 7" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1816 

William and 

Emeline schooner 

Hallowell 

MA Hallowell MA 118 69' 10" 21' 11" 9' 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1802 

William 

Wright schooner New Orleans Mathews Co. VA 79 67' 5" 18' 4" 7' 4" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

1811 Zephyr schooner Warren RI Warren RI 133 75' 6" 21' 11" 9' 3" 

1 deck, 

2 masts

32 
Possibly diagnostic artifacts that were noted inside the hull include a ceramic or glass 

bottle base protruding from the sediment near the stern. This white pottery vessel bears a 

possible decoration: a thin dark green line. Unfortunately the quality of the video footage 

prevents us from capturing an image of this artifact and learn know about its diagnostic 

characteristics. The information about the existence of this artifact and the presence of a green 

line on it comes from the field logs, during which archaeologists were able to view the site 

through the port holes. The artifact is otherwise invisible in the video record, due to the fact that 

the camera resolution available on the NR1 was low. 

33 
4:0 ANALYSIS 

4.1. Artifacts 

4.1.1. Wood Samples 

Wood samples were collected from the site in order to identify the construction material 

and possibly the shipyard's location. As mentioned above, all samples were collected by an 

archaeological team from the MMS in 2001, and they were pieces from the sacrificial planking 

that was between the planking of the ship and the copper sheathing. The original location of all 

samples was in the bow of the ship, where the preservation was better, and the position of 

revealed timbers was relatively easy to access by the ROV without damaging the rest of the hull 

(Figure 12). All wood and sheathing samples that were attached to them were collected from 

fragments that have fallen off from the hull onto the sediment, in order to avoid permanent 

damage to the site. They were collected from the port side of the bow. 

Figure 12. Starboard side of the bow across from where the wood samples were collected 

(Photograph courtesy of the United States Minerals Management Service and 

ExxonMobil Corporation). 

35 
Samples were analyzed by two independent tree identification laboratories. While the 

sizes of the samples were too small for dendrochronological analysis, scientists were able to 

determine the tree types and the geographical area in which they grew. Analysis by both 

laboratories, the Center for Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University at 

Carbondale, and the College of Forestry at Mississippi State University, revealed that the wood 

was Pinus strobus. This type of tree is an American species known as Eastern White Pine or 

Northern White Pine that grows in Eastern North America. While it is not a perfect material for 

shipbuilding due to its mild resistance to rot and degradation, the pinus strobus of North America 

is known to have been largely harvested for shipbuilding purposes from the 18th century 

onwards. Several New England forest lands were reserved for exploitation by the Royal Navy 

and after American Independence most of the wood was harvested for commercial and naval 

shipbuilding. 

4.1.2. Metallic Sheathing and Fasteners 

 Since the double planking and the metal sheathing was a unique feature of the hull, 

samples from the copper sheathing were also collected for identification and analysis. Sheathing 

samples were attached to the wood samples described above and were collected from near the 

port bow section of the ship. In order to avoid intrusions to the site’s integrity all samples were 

taken from features that have already fallen off the hull. The samples were attached to the wood 

samples mentioned above and were collected from the bow area. Metal samples were removed 

from the edges of sheathing plates that were in poor condition to allow the shredding of a small 

sample. The largest of the samples has two corners, comprising the edge of a 36-centimeter (14 

inch) wide sheet (Figure 13). The amount of sheathing overlap, 4 centimeters (1.5 inches), was 

determined from a study of this piece. The sheathing overlaps on the lower edge of each sheet, 

in the same manner as roofing is applied today. This method indicates that the vessel was 

sheathed beginning at the keel and moving upwards toward the gunwale (Jones 2004: 67). 

There were no maker’s marks or gauge stamps detected that would indicate the location 

and possibly the date of the sheathing’s manufacture. However, the mere existence of copper 

sheathing on a vessel this size indicates that the ship was most likely built in the first half of the 

19th century. The application of copper sheathing on wooden hulls is a practice that first begun 

on naval ships to protect these expensive hulls. Its use on commercial ships began in the early 

19th century, but it was exclusive to the large ships involved in trade with the warm climate 

areas such as the Indian Ocean. The use of copper sheathing did not become a widespread 

practice on smaller vessels, until the second half of the 19th century (for a detailed analysis of 

the development and use of the metal sheathing practices see Appendix 1). 

Another historical development that is of great significance for the interpretation of the 

copper analysis results from the Mica shipwreck was the development of copper alloys as 

sheathing materials. Appendix 1 provides a detailed study of this technological progress. In 

summary, the use of a popular copper alloy known as the Muntz metal (50 percent copper and 50 

percent zinc) after about 1850 was of significance. We have little archaeological data about 

when this alloy became widespread in America, but the possibility of finding it on the Mica 

shipwreck would have provided us with a terminus post quem. 

36 
Figure 13. Largest fragment of metallic sheathing recovered from the Mica shipwreck 

(Photograph by Toby Jones). 

The composition analysis of the metallic sheathing samples from the Mica shipwreck 

were performed using a refracting electron microprobe and an atomic absorption mass 

spectrometer in Texas A&M University laboratories. The refracting electron microprobe 

composition analysis was performed on a Cameca SX50 electron microprobe using energy 

dispersive spectroscopy on four spectrometers by Dr. Renald Guillemette, director of the 

Electron Microprobe Laboratory in the Department of Geology and Geophysics in the College of 

Geosciences. The atomic absorption mass spectrometer tests were performed by the Office of 

the Texas State Chemist at Texas A&M University (See Appendix 3 for details and original 

reports of metal analysis). 

Results of both testing processes are highly accurate. The atomic absorption mass 

spectrometer test requires less sample preparation than the refracting electron microprobe but it 

requires the complete destruction of the sample by dissolving it in acid. The electron 

microprobe, on the other hand, uses x-rays to analyze the artifacts in a non-destructive manner. 

This analysis can determine the grain structure of the metal as well as the frequency of any 

impurities. 

In order to analyze samples on the refracting electron microprobe, small pieces of 

sheathing were bedded on edge in epoxy (Figure 14). The face of the block was polished to 

expose a fresh surface of metal, and coated with a fine layer of pure, powdered carbon. By 

focusing the x-rays on a freshly cut edge, the probe could avoid areas where superficial corrosion 

had altered the structure and composition of the metal. While the sheathing fragments were not 

37 
Figure 14. The refracting electron microprobe sample carrier. It contains pieces of metallic 

sheathing awaiting analysis (Photograph courtesy of Dr. Renald Guillemette). 

destroyed, they remained permanently embedded in the clear epoxy carrier. The electron 

microprobe allowed more in-depth and varied analyses, however, it was also more laborintensive and slightly more expensive to use when running a small number of samples. 

The second group of samples from the Mica shipwreck site consisted of the fasteners 

used to attach the metallic sheathing to the sacrificial planking. The reason why these samples 

were collected and analyzed is related to another aspect of the historical development of metal 

sheathing technologies: use of dissimilar metals for constructional features that would physically 

38 
touch each other in salt water would cause a process called electrochemical corrosion. 

Therefore, in order to prevent the preferential corrosion of one metal, both pieces (in this case, 

the sheathing and the fasteners) had to be made of materials in similar metallic composition. 

Because pure copper fasteners would have been too weak to be driven into the planking, they 

were either alloyed with small amounts of harder metals or they were mechanically strengthened 

during the manufacturing process by rolling them through grooved rollers or by a process used 

since antiquity, called annealing, which involved controlled heating and cooling of the metal to 

improve the grain structure. 

The metallic sheathing and fasteners from the Mica shipwreck were tested using 

refracting electron microprobe and an atomic absorption mass spectrometer, as described above. 

Results of both tests were nearly identical: the vessel was sheathed with copper sheets that were 

an alloy of 99.5 percent copper, with traces of arsenic (complete metallic sheathing analysis 

results can be found in Appendix 6:0). The nails were made of a brass alloy containing 84.7 

percent copper, alloyed with 5.3 percent tin and 7.8 percent zinc. The fasteners contained traces 

of lead, arsenic, and bismuth (see Appendix 3 for original analysis results). After being 

mechanically cleaned, the fasteners were a yellow brass color, noticeably different from the 

reddish-yellow color of the copper sheathing. Their appearance and the results of the tests show 

that the nails on the Mica shipwreck obtained their strength from their alloy composition, not 

from annealing or rolling. The nails have irregularly shaped heads and shaft lengths. Surfaces of 

the nails appear porous, and that suggests that they may have been cast, as opposed to being cut 

or hand wrought, which were all methods that were in use in the first half of the 19th century 

(see Appendix 1). 

Study of metal artifacts from the Mica Shipwreck provided a third type of information: 

the absence of machine-punched holes on the copper sheets, to allow the fasteners to go through 

to attach them to the planking. Historical data suggests that the machine developed by John 

Gray (patented in 1830) to create pre-punched copper sheets, became of widespread use in the 

second half of the 19th century (Gray 1830: 173). Use of this method expedited the sheathing 

process, shortening the duration and decreasing the labor cost of such work. The fact that no 

such machine was used to perform the sheathing of the Mica vessel is understood through a 

visual analysis of the holes on the sheathing samples. Firstly, the holes are not of a uniform size 

and shape. Secondly, they were not punched at regular intervals, nor in straight lines. This 

information might indicate that the Mica ship was built sometime before the advent of 

mechanical manufacturing processes for metallic sheathing. However, such remarks are difficult 

to make since we know very little about how widespread the use of such machines was, and to 

which category of ships it was applied. Besides, the non-mechanical method of punching of 

sheathing holes might have survived well into the end of the practice of copper-sheathing (Jones 

2004: 65). Therefore, this analysis was concluded not to be indicative of a specific date for the 

Mica vessel. 

For a comparative analysis of the sheathing samples collected from the Mica shipwreck 

with those from other contemporary vessels see Appendix 7. 

39 
4.1.3. Lead Hawse Pipe 

The lead hawse pipe recovered from the site measures 17 centimeters (6.8 inches) in 

diameter and 41 centimeters (16.2 inches) long (Figures 7 and 15). The thickness of the hawse 

pipe wall is about 2 centimeters (0.5 inches). An examination of the pipe shows that it was built 

by joining eight long pieces of lead to form a cylindrical shape. The seams can be observed on 

both the internal and external surfaces. The average width between the seams is 7 centimeters 

(2.5 inches). Based on the wear patterns, it is possible to ascertain that the hawse pipe belongs to 

the starboard side of the ship. The lower outboard lip was substantially worn, probably from the 

rubbing of an anchor cable or chain while the vessel was riding at anchor (Jones 2004: 69) 

(Figure 16). 

Figure 15. Forward face of lead hawse pipe from the Mica shipwreck. Casting seams are evident 

on the both the external (right) and internal (left) openings (Photograph by Dave 

Ball). 

40 
Figure 16. Interior opening of conserved lead hawse pipe from the Mica shipwreck. Note the 

possible cut marks on the curled-in exterior surface, visible in the lower left 

(Photograph by Dave Ball). 

According to metallurgical analysis, the hawse pipe was composed of lead with traces of 

copper and bismuth (for analysis results see Appendix 3). The almost pure composition of the 

hawse pipe was an expected result due to the metallurgical characteristics of lead that makes it an 

easy metal to smelt, and to be free of impurities. Comparisons of the Mica hawse pipe with 

those of other shipwrecks as well as modern lead show that the purity and grain structure of this 

archaeological sample is almost identical with others. The other hawse pipes of the Mica 

shipwreck were not found and may be buried in the sediment inside the hull. Other small 

fragments of lead might have belonged to the ship’s pump(s) (Jones 2004: 69). 

4.1.4. Artifact Conservation 

Dave Johnson of Galvetech in New Orleans, Louisiana undertook the initial conservation 

of the wood and metal artifacts, including the hawse pipe. Barnacles and lead carbonate covered 

substantial portions of the internal and external hawse pipe. The amount of conservation carried 

out on the hawse pipe remains unclear. 

41 
Metallic sheathing fragments were treated using desalination and electrolytic reduction. 

None of the sheathing fragments appeared to have been sealed, and were experiencing extensive 

tarnishing. These fragments were mechanically cleaned with glass bristle brushes and then 

immersed in benzotriazole and finally coated with Krylon 1301 clear matte acrylic spray by 

Toby Jones at the Conservation Research Lab at Texas A&M University (Figure 17). 

Figure 17. A fragment of the copper sheathing retrieved from the Mica shipwreck. The bright 

spot in the lower right corner has been mechanically cleaned with a glass bristle 

brush (Photograph by Toby Jones). 

4.1.5. Analysis of the Hull and Rigging - Identification of the Ship's Sail Arrangement 

As discussed in section 2.2.2., based on a random sampling of the ships listed in the New 

Orleans Bee that frequented the port of New Orleans in the early nineteenth century, the majority 

of the ships with known rigs were brigs. The second category of most common rigging was the 

schooner rig. Ships rigged as schooners and brigs could be in the size range displayed by the 

42 
remains of the Mica shipwreck. Thus, our archaeological investigation concentrated on 

identifying the possible rigging of the vessel. 

According to Robert Brindley's contemporary description in his A Compendium of Naval 

Architecture (1832), a typical nineteenth century brig is a vessel with two square rigged masts. 

Later brigs might carry a fore-and-aft rig on their mizzen, but as a rule, the foremast would 

always carry square sails. Brindley describes a schooner as a vessel with two masts and rigged 

with fore and aft sails. Other possibilities for Mica would have been a brigantine, which, 

according to Brindley, was rigged as the aft of a schooner's, and forward that of a brig 

(frequently called an hermaphrodite). Therefore, the only way to differentiate these rigs would 

have been the rig of the vessel, which could be reconstructed based on the positions of the chainplates. 

Again, a contemporary source, David Steel's The Elements and Rigging and Seamanship

(1794), describes the chain-plates as follows: 

"Thick iron plates bolted to the ship's sides, and to which the chains and dead-eyes that 

support the masts by the shrouds are connected." 

 On Mica, several of these elements were visible (see section 2.4., 27 July 2006) (Figure 

10). The difference between how the shrouds of a square rigged vessel are attached to the hull 

vs. the way the shrouds of a fore-and-aft sail are attached provides us with clues regarding the 

sail arrangement of the ship. First, the easier indication would be that a square rigged mast 

would require more chainplates than a fore-and-aft rigged vessel. The fact that there are only 

two cahinplates visible near the bow of the Mica vessel indicates a low number of chainplates, 

and therefore indicates that the foremast probably carried a fore-and-aft rig. In this case, the ship 

could only be a schooner. 

 The position of the chain-plates in relation to the mast steps would indicate the rake of 

the masts, and provide information about how the shrouds were located in relation to the masts. 

Fore-and-aft rigs required more space for performing the tacking maneuvers, thus, the chainplates for such vessels would have been located further aft of the vessel than the square-rigged 

ones, so that the elements of the running rigging would be free to come around, without being 

restricted by the shrouds. However, since the bottom of Mica's hull is covered with sediment, 

which hinders identification of the mast steps, it is impossible to discern the position of the 

chain-plates in relation to the masts. Further study of the site might reveal information to answer 

this question. 

43 
5:0 CONCLUSIONS 

After four scientific visits to the Mica Shipwreck Site, and an analysis of all the data 

collected during these expeditions certain conclusions can be reached: 

(1) The ship was built and lost sometime during the first half of the 19th century. 

This statement is based on an analysis of the characteristics of the copper sheathing, hull 

form, the use of wood as the primary construction material, the vessel's general form and 

size, and a visual analysis of the artifact assemblage. 

(2) The ship was rigged as a two-masted schooner. 

The general size and form of the vessel, on-site location of rigging-related features such 

as chainplates and deadeye straps, and the distribution of certain elements such as blocks 

suggest this specific rigging arrangement (for general distribution of the elements see 

Figure 7). 

(3) The ship was built or repaired in a shipyard on the northeastern coast of North America. 

This statement is based on the results of the wood analysis: Pinus strobus, an American 

species known as Northern White Pine that grows in Eastern North America. It is 

possible that a new layer of sacrificial planking or repairs to the sacrificial planking was 

applied to the hull in North America, which may not have been the original location of 

construction of the ship. 

 These three facts do not provide much information to determine the exact identity of this 

shipwreck. While it is possible that further fieldwork might yield an artifact that might help to 

identify the shipwreck, it is also likely that this ship's loss may have never been registered. 

Unless an insurance claim was filed by the owner, it is unlikely that there were any survivors of 

the shipwreck to report the incident (the off shore location of the site makes it unlikely that 

anyone survived the wreck). Moreover, it is almost impossible to match this ship, based on 

archaeological assemblage to a vessel that might have been reported as overdue. While certain 

vessels appear in historical record as overdue, or possibly lost – since they fail to reach their 

destination – such records rarely provide details of the ship’s cargo. Therefore, even if such 

records survived it would be impossible to identify this vessel based on such records. 

It was not possible to further the historical research based on the archaeological 

information derived from the study described in this report. However, it is certain that the size, 

the rig, and probably the cargo of the Mica Ship can be considered as typical for the 19th century 

Gulf of Mexico. These characteristics add to the difficulty of identifying the vessel. A review of 

the contemporary ship enrollment records from New Orleans has yielded hundreds of vessels 

that fit the dimensions of the Mica wreck (see Appendix 5). To be specific, our research 

revealed 253 possible vessel matches in use during the first half of the 19th century (based on 

their construction dates). This number only includes the vessels in the size range of the Mica 

vessel, carrying similar rigs to Mica, and constructed in the northeastern coast of North America. 

It is the author’s opinion that it is possible that even a full excavation of the site might fail to 

produce evidence to positively connect this vessel with the report of its loss, the possible 

45 
insurance claim filed for it, its name, and the historical evidence that might have survived, since 

there are hundreds of almost identical vessels in such lists. Unless there was a survivor to report 

the exact location where the ship sank, the approximate areas of ship's loss would have been 

anywhere between its last port of call and its destination. 

However, it is important to recognize the importance of these small vessels involved in 

the coastal trade in the 19th century-Gulf of Mexico. The following analysis provides a 

historical and economic context for the Mica shipwreck. Based on the general navigation 

patterns in the Gulf of Mexico (described in the historical background chapter), we believe that 

the Mica Ship's last port of call or destination must have been New Orleans, the largest 

commercial hub in the northern Gulf. 

 Based on the data gathered from the arrival and departure records published in the New 

Orleans Bee, ships that were of similar sizes to Mica generally sailed on two routes in early 19th 

century: (1) to European destinations (overwhelming majority frequented Liverpool and Le 

Havre), and (2) ports on the northeastern coast of North America (mainly New York or 

Philadelphia). Smaller ships generally sailed within the Gulf, and to Caribbean ports. Small 

ships and steamboats generally carried out the coastal trade between the Northern Gulf ports, i.e. 

Biloxi, Mobile, and Pensacola. The agricultural, mineral and industrial products of the 

hinterland were almost all gathered through the navigable rivers on board flat-bottomed wooden 

barges and steamboats. 

 A second category of information gathered from an examination of the data from the 

New Orleans Bee is about the cargoes. In general, ships that sailed to European destinations 

carried cotton as their main cargo. On their way back to New Orleans from Europe, these ships 

brought mainly luxury goods such as silks and other luxury textiles, garments, candy and 

chocolate, spices and herbs, gourmet foods and wines, and jewelry are among these popular 

items. The northbound ships that sailed mostly to New York and Philadelphia either carried 

cotton or they re-distributed what seems to be a portion of the non-perishable luxury goods of 

European origin. Typical merchandise of this type were silk and other luxury fabrics and 

textiles, musical instruments, jewelry, and dresses. Typical return cargoes of such ships 

generally included iron (from New York), candles, tobacco, and textiles and furs. 

 Visual analysis of the Mica shipwreck indicates that the cargo of this ship was most 

probably perishable and has long since disintegrated. Cargoes such as iron, metal products such 

as nails (one of Philadelphia's main exports in the early 19th century) or other manufactured 

goods of American or European origin can be eliminated based on the fieldwork results. General 

historical data suggest that for the size and rig of this ship it probably sailed on the trans-Atlantic 

route to Europe or to one of the ports of the Atlantic coast of the northern United States. 

However, we cannot completely eliminate the possibility that Mica was one of the ships engaged 

in the coffee, sugar, or flour trade of the South Gulf and/or Caribbean regions. In other words, 

since historical documents provide us with a good understanding of the possible cargoes of welldefined routes, we can narrow the possibilities, but cannot definitely suggest a destination, 

origin, a route or a cargo for this ship. However, with adequate equipment and funding, further 

archaeological study of this site is likely to produce important information regarding the 

function, destination, and origin for the Mica Shipwreck. 

46 
 Removal of the sediment inside the ship might reveal diagnostic artifacts that would help 

with the precise dating of the site and perhaps a better understanding of provenance. Even 

though ballast was observed in the hold of the ship, sediment samples taken from the bilge might 

reveal what (if any) type of cargo the ship carried. In the event that this was an organic cargo 

that has disintegrated, it might be possible to identify it through micro and macro botanical 

analysis of the remains. Analysis of the pollen that may have been contained in the bilge 

sediment might help identify disintegrated perishable cargo, or what the ship carried on a regular 

basis. Some crops that have been introduced as commercial products into the lands surrounding 

the Gulf of Mexico (i.e. sugar, cotton, coffee etc.) might indicate or suggest certain routes or 

nationalities, which, in turn, might help with historical research. 

 Historical research about the Mica Shipwreck is limited as of now, mostly due to the fact 

that the limited nature of archaeological investigation hindered the leads. Historic research could 

best be carried out after further field work that would provide: (1) A better understanding of the 

artifact assemblage, (2) organic remains, (3) accurate calculation of the ballast, which would help 

us understand whether or not there was cargo on board (only possible after all sediment is 

removed from the hold of the ship), and (4) a detailed analysis of the structural elements of the 

ship, which would lead to a better understanding of the rig of the ship (i.e. mast steps, their 

location, scantlings etc.). Further work at the site is also necessary to acquire a detailed 

photomosaic of the site that would be used to create a site map. 

 In summary, the Mica Shipwreck site has great archaeological potential. Not only that it 

is a contained site, which would certainly reveal considerable information if the sediment inside 

the hull could be removed, but also, because the state of preservation of the hull remains is 

excellent. Developing technology that makes archaeological work at depth more cost efficient 

and less technologically challenging will certainly provide us with chances to study these deep 

and well-preserved sites with greater efficiency in the future. We are looking forward to a 

chance of returning to the Mica Shipwreck when funds and equipment become available. 

47 
6:0 APPENDIX A: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE USE OF METALLIC SHEATHING 

ON WOODEN SAILING SHIPS by Toby Jones 

The most important artifacts recovered during the Mica shipwreck investigation were 

fragments of metallic hull sheathing. Because hull sheathing underwent rapid technological 

evolution, it was possible to create a chronology of sheathing development. This was achieved 

by analyzing historical documents, patent records, and period sheathing advertisements and by 

performing composition analysis on sheathing fragments from shipwrecks of known 

provenience. By examining the sheathing on the Mica wreck and placing it within the sheathing 

chronology, the archaeologists were able to date the wreck. The entire process will be explained 

below, after presenting a brief history of sheathing development. 

This section will briefly explore the transition from organic sheathing (wood, fiber, and 

pitch/resins) to the more durable metallic sheathings (lead, copper, copper alloy, zinc, tin, and 

iron), looking specifically at mixed-metal or composition alloy sheathings (The terms mixedmetal, composition, and alloyed metallic sheathing are used interchangeably. Types of metals 

discussed in this chapter and their elemental symbols: Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb), Zinc 

(Zn), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Bismuth (Bi) and Mercury (Hg)). The development of different 

sheathing alloys and their relative effectiveness will be evaluated, through analysis of firsthand 

accounts and patent reports. An analysis of the initial success and subsequent precipitous decline 

of the Milled Lead Company of England will be explored. It will be shown that the technological 

evolution of ship sheathing was not linear and progressive, but alternated between new 

innovations and old standbys. The patent specifications will be discussed chronologically, but it 

is necessary to note that there was often a substantial overlap in the acceptance of a new 

sheathing technology and the discarding of an older method. It is also important to remember 

that the date of a patent did not always represent the date that the new sheathing technology was 

created by the inventor or utilized by the industry. The development of new sheathing materials 

was a dynamic process that resulted in few instances of overnight changes to the status quo. 

Preventing leakage as well as damage caused by marine organisms such as Teredo 

navalis and Limnoria terebranshas, was a necessary priority of the builders and owners of 

wooden ships. The damage caused by marine borers became increasingly acute in the early to 

middle 16th century, as European mariners began to routinely sail into tropical waters in both the 

Old and New Worlds, warm water being the preferred home of the destructive organisms. In the 

15th and 16th centuries, the most common methods of protecting a ship’s hull from the damage 

caused by marine organisms included charring, double planking, coating with chemical 

concoctions, and covering with hammered or cast sheet lead. A brief description and examples of 

each barrier are discussed below, along with a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages 

of each method. 

Burning the surface of the external hull planking created a thick layer of charcoal, which 

was sealed with pitch and then smoothed over with tallow. A letter written to a French 

technological journal in 1666 proved most insightful concerning the methods and problems 

associated with charring a hull, as the following extract illustrates: “The Portugals scorch their 

ships, insomuch that in quick works there is made a coaly crust of about an Inch thick. But as 

this is dangerous, it happening not seldom, that the whole vessel is burnt.” (Royal Society of 

London 1665/6: 190). 

49 
It was thought that the worms were unable to digest the charcoal, which prevented them 

from boring further into the planking. In 1622, Richard Hawkins wrote that this was the most 

common method for protecting the hull of a vessel, and concerning its effectiveness, he wrote 

that “this is not bad.” (Hawkins 1933: 81).

Double planking, also known as sacrificial planking, yacht planking or deal, was used by 

many nations (Petty 1691: 5). William Petty of England related how wood sheathing was 

typically defined and applied before 1682: 

“First, That only competent and allowable Defense against the Worm, before this 

of Lead-Sheathing, was the paying of the Hulls from the Waters edge downwards 

with Stuff, and laying the inside of a Sheathing-board (from inch and quarter to 

three quarters thick) all over with Tar and Hair, to be brought over the 

forementioned Stuff, and being well nailed, Graving or Paying the outside of the 

said Board all over with another Composition of Brimstone, Oyl, and other 

Ingredients, which is called Wood-Sheathing.” (Petty 1691: 36-37)

Hawkins related his belief that the borers were unable to digest the animal hair. He wrote 

that the most desirable wood for sheathing was elm, because it was more durable than oak, and 

conformed to the contour of the ship better. He also stated that the typical thickness of a double 

plank was 0.01 meters (0.5 inches), with the thinner planking performing better. The manner of 

covering the boards was similar to the way mentioned by Petty above, with generous amounts of 

tar and hair being sandwiched between the two layers of wood. For attaching the boards to the 

hull, Hawkins said that nails, presumably of iron, should be no more than a hand span apart, with 

the most effective sheathing being the most densely nailed (Hawkins 1933: 81-82). The opinion 

held by Hawkins was that wood sheathing was the most cost-effective method of protecting a 

vessel against the ravages of the borers. 

Wood sheathing was indeed economical and long-lasting compared to other sheathing 

materials (chemical concoctions and lead), but it was not without its drawbacks. The scarcity of 

locally available timber was a major concern, especially in times of war, when hostile nations 

might have been the only source of the desired planking. Petty listed another disadvantage, 

namely that unprotected wood sheathing was prone to rapid fouling, which affected speed and 

handling characteristics of the sailing vessel, meaning that the wood could not be employed 

alone. He also complained that the numerous nail heads protruding from the hull planking 

created excessive drag (Petty 1691: 38-39). Sheathed hulls had to routinely be brushed clean to 

remove the accumulated algal colonization and barnacle growth, because of the drag they 

created. Petty relates how long-handled scrubbing brushes were used to clean the sides of the 

ship while at sea (Petty 1691: 39). These brushes could nearly reach the keel, lessening the need 

for frequent careening. However, the scarcity of suitable sheathing timber, and the fact that it 

was only effective at slowing, and not stopping, the progress of the marine borers, necessitated 

the development of a new sheathing material. 

Mixtures of rosin, sulfur, tar, oil, and other substances, including crushed glass and hair, 

were often employed in the protection of hull planking (Hawkins 1933: 81-82). These substances 

could be used in conjunction with sacrificial planking, or applied directly to the external surface 

of the hull planking (Hawkins 1933: 81-82. See also Petty 1691: 36-37). The use of white stuff 

50 
was common in the 15th and 16th centuries, and consisted of a blend of train oil (fish or whale 

oil), sulfur, and rosin. This mixture was mildly successful, but the expense of the rosin spurred 

investigation into cheaper alternatives. A mixture called “black stuff” was invented sometime in 

the 17th century. This compound consisted of two parts pine pitch to one part tar, and was heated 

and spread on the hull. To make it more effective, it could be mixed with crushed glass or other 

substances that would have a detrimental effect on the borer’s progress (Hawkins 1933: 82). 

For the most part, the sheathing methods discussed above were merely hindrances to the 

marine borers. The sailors of the period were in dire need of a durable and impregnable barrier 

against the voracious shipworm. Some inventors began turning their attention towards metals, 

specifically lead and copper. Ships sheathed with cast lead, and to a lesser extent, hammered 

lead, were used during the 16th and mid to late 17th centuries, alongside ships sheathed with the 

abovementioned techniques. 

LEAD SHEATHING 

The use of lead as a sheathing material was not a technological innovation of the postmedieval era. Vessels in ancient times, for example the third century B.C. Kyrenia wreck and the 

first century A.D. Nemi barges were sheathed with hammered lead. However, the sheathing 

probably served a different purpose in antiquity. Because shipworms were not a widespread 

problem in the Mediterranean at that time, it has been hypothesized that the primary purpose of 

the hammered lead sheathing was to prevent leakage in the edged-jointed hull planking (Hocker 

1989: 197-198). Yet, hand-pounded lead was expensive, of inconsistent thickness, and generally 

lacking in durability, making it likely to be employed on seldom-used royal ships, old vessels 

prone to leaking, or for emergency repairs. 

In Europe, the use of lead as a sheathing material was revived in the 16th century, but it 

was needed for a different purpose. Instead of preventing water from entering the vessel, the 

sheathing was designed to provide a barrier between the hull planking and marine borers. 

Although hammered lead was still in use, a better method of casting the lead was discovered. 

Molten lead was poured into thin sheets, which were lighter and of a more consistent thickness 

than hammered lead. However, this new manufacturing process failed to produce sheathing that 

was long-lasting, with Hawkins commenting that “some sheath their Shippes with Lead; which 

besides the cost and waight, although they use the thinnest sheet-lead that I have seene in any 

place, yet it is nothing durable, but subject to many casualties.” (Hawkins 1933: 81). This lack of 

durability was caused by the inconsistent thickness across each sheet. The sheets would heat and 

cool unevenly, causing cracks to form along the transitions between thick and thin areas on the 

same sheet (Hale 1695). These cracks, often invisible to the naked eye, allowed access of the 

minute shipworm larvae, which according to Hawkins, entered the hull planking no larger than 

the diameter of a Spanish needle, and soon grew to be larger around than a man’s finger 

(Hawkins 1933: 81). Hammered and cast lead had many problems, but inventors continued to 

refine the manufacturing process, in an effort to make the sheathing durable. 

The invention of milled lead in the third quarter of the 17th century was seen by many as 

the long awaited solution to the shipworm problem. In 1670, a patent for the manufacturing 

process and marketing of the “New Invention of Mill’d Lead” was granted to Sir Philip Howard 

and Sir Francis Watson (Petty 1691, 5). This act led to the formation of the Patent Milled Lead 

51 
Company, which had a relatively brief and highly controversial existence. The manufacturing 

process called for the lead to be cast into thin ingots, and then rolled between drums, producing a 

uniform sheet of any desired thickness. The new sheets were denser, smoother, and not subject to 

cracking because of their consistent thickness (Bulteel 1672: 6193). In a period advertisement, 

Thomas Hale, an agent of the Milled Lead Company, stated that milled lead was, on average, 22 

percent cheaper then the equivalent amount of cast lead (Hale 1695: 2). He compared the initial 

costs of wood sheathing (10 pence per square foot), to that of milled lead (15 pence per square 

foot). The savings of using milled lead could be found in the reduction in annual maintenance 

costs, since the lead-sheathed hull required no graving, an expense of 40 pounds a year on a 600 

ton merchant vessel (Hale 1695: 4). When a ship finally needed to be stripped of its old 

sheathing, the ship owners were paid more by recyclers for the used milled lead, both because it 

was of a higher purity than cast lead, and because it was less corroded compared to the same 

amount of cast lead. Concerning performance, Hale claimed that milled lead made a ship stiffer, 

and kept the hull cool and dry, whereas wood sheathing absorbed water, which caused the oakum 

caulking to rot quickly (Hale 1695: 4). 

The Royal Navy, seeing the strategic advantages of a long-lasting and impenetrable hull 

sheathing, ordered 20 ships to be sheathed with milled lead. Phoenix was the first ship which was 

fully sheathed with milled lead in March 1670. That vessel was soon followed by Dreadnought, 

Henrietta and 17 other warships. Phoenix, having completed two voyages to the Straits of 

Magellan, was inspected by King Charles II during a routine careening in 1673 (Bulteel 1672, 

6192). The king was so impressed that, in December of 1673, he ordered all Royal Navy vessels 

to be sheathed exclusively with lead (Petty 1691, 6-7). Bulteel enthusiastically added that the 

sheathing “was found to be in as good condition, as at first doing.” (Bulteel 1672: 6192). By 

1675, the trials had been deemed successful, with the Admiralty granting the Milled Lead 

Company a 20-year contract for the exclusive sheathing of English naval vessels. 

The celebration at the Milled Lead Company was, however, short-lived. Reports of major 

problems began to trickle in from ships based in distant ports. All the descriptions shared 

similarities with the following excerpt: 

From abroad, of a quality discovered in our Lead-sheathing, tending (if not timely 

prevented) to the utter Destruction of his Majesties Ships, namely, That of the 

Eating into, and wasting their Rudder-Irons and Bolts underwater, to such a 

degree, and in so short a space of time, as had never been observed upon any 

unsheathed or Wood-sheathed Ships. (Petty 1691: 9).

Among the officers of the affected vessels, there was a consensus that the iron hull 

fasteners, especially the rudder irons and bolts, were experiencing accelerated corrosion. The 

cause or process was unknown, but the common connection was that the increased corrosion was 

occurring exclusively on lead-sheathed vessels. The officers brought several complaints to the 

attention of the Admiralty. In April 1678, the Admiralty opened an official inquiry into the 

effectiveness of milled lead sheathing and its purported negative effects on iron fasteners. This 

action set off a contentious debate between the Milled Lead Company and the officers of the 

Royal Navy. 

52 
Neither the Milled Lead Company nor the Royal Navy officers were objective in their 

treatment of the corrosion problem. It is important to briefly identify the motives driving each 

party. The Milled Lead Company was a commercial venture that had risked its existence on the 

viability of one product, and as such, they expounded its harmless nature, even in the face of 

overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some of the officers held financial stakes in companies 

whose materials were no longer being utilized by the Royal Navy for sheathing (Petty 1691: 61).

Other officers wanted to absolve themselves of blame, as the corrosion of the rudder hardware 

could be mistaken for poor maintenance of a vessel, which would tarnish their service records. 

The Admiralty would, of course, side with the officers, but they also had to accommodate King 

Charles II, who had enthusiastically approved the use of milled lead. 

The inquiry opened with the officers relating vivid descriptions of the accelerated 

corrosion on 13 vessels, which they believed was due to the lead sheathing. The third rate HMS 

Dreadnought, sheathed in 1671, was inspected in 1676, with her rudder irons, pintles and 

gudgeons being routinely replaced. During a subsequent inspection 18 months later, the iron 

fasteners were found to be “very much eaten and consumed, and not to be trusted at Sea.” (Petty 

1691: 45). The afflicted hardware was replaced, and the ship was inspected again on October 8, 

1682, when it was discovered that nearly all of the iron fasteners in the stern were completely 

dissolved, with the hull being held together by rust and dirt (Petty 1691: 45). HMS Lyon was 

sheathed with lead in 1672, and inspected in October 1677. The iron bolts under the sheathing 

were found to be badly corroded, “insomuch that some were gotten out by the Caulkers with 

their Spike-irons...the like whereof the Officers at Portsmouth say, they have never found in any 

Ship not sheathed with Lead.” (Petty 1691: 45-46). The vessel subject to the fastest corrosion 

was HMS James Gally. After being sheathed in October 1676, she was inspected five months 

later, when her rudder irons were found to be completely dissolved. These were replaced, and a 

follow-up examination in October 1677 found them to be again dissolved into numerous pieces 

(Petty 1691: 47).

It seemed clear to the Royal Navy that the presence of the lead sheathing was having a 

deleterious effect on the iron hardware. In light of these accusations and strong supporting 

evidence, the Admiralty was poised to recommend that the use of lead as a sheathing material be 

discontinued until the corrosion problems could be addressed. 

The burden of proof fell squarely on the Milled Lead Company, and they were prepared 

to fight for their continued existence. They began to systematically challenge the conclusions 

reached by the officers and the Admiralty. It is important to remember that their arguments, 

briefly discussed below, demonstrated the current knowledge of chemistry. Yet some of their 

arguments were contradictory to each other and occasionally sounded desperate (Petty 1691). 

The Milled Lead Company opened its defense by accusing the naval officers of bringing 

suit against the company in an effort to distract the Admiralty from the supposed true cause of 

the vessel hardware corrosion, namely dereliction of duty by the officers, specifically when it 

came to routine hull maintenance (Petty 1691: 55). The company also claimed that the problems 

with the lead sheathing were being fabricated or exaggerated by those officers who held a 

financial stake in the companies that dealt with the previously used sheathing materials like 

wood and ‘stuff’ (various mixtures of rosin, tar, sulfur and oil) (Petty 1691: 61). The companies 

53 
using the older technologies were now prevented, by Royal decree, from sheathing naval vessels, 

although the vastly larger merchant fleet still required hull protection. 

When that argument failed to persuade the Navy Board, the Milled Lead Company tried a 

case-by-case refutation of the charges, saying that the corrosion of the iron fasteners was an 

intrinsic characteristic of the hardware. They meant that the blacksmiths who made the hardware 

and fasteners were improperly mixing or tempering the iron, causing it to corrode at an unusually 

high rate (Petty 1691: 23). However, it is highly unlikely that all of the lead-sheathed ships were 

receiving poorly manufactured hardware, while the unsheathed and wood-sheathed vessels were 

supplied with only quality ironwork. 

Perhaps the strongest argument placed forth by the Milled Lead Company was the fact 

that unsheathed, wood-sheathed, and lead-sheathed vessels all experienced some corrosion of the 

iron hardware. It was known that iron corroded in the presence in saltwater, but that fact didn’t 

account for the differing rates of corrosion according to sheathing types. The company argued 

that if the lead sheathing was responsible for the accelerated iron corrosion, then all the iron on a 

lead-sheathed vessel would be uniformly corroded. In support of this, they showed that certain 

vessels, both lead-sheathed and wood-sheathed, had some fasteners that were heavily corroded, 

while nearby fasteners were as solid as the day they were put in. 

Although contradictory to the claim that all of the lead-sheathed ships received faulty 

hardware, the Milled Lead Company expanded upon the argument that the difference in 

corrosion rates could be accounted for by the amount of saltwater a fastener was exposed to. 

They claimed that a properly prepared fastener, meaning one that had been sealed, or parceled, 

with tar and hair, was impervious to the saltwater, and therefore, the associated corrosion (Petty 

1691: 25). 

The reason the iron fasteners were subject to accelerated corrosion when in the presence 

of lead sheathing was not a coincidence, and can be determined by analyzing the arguments 

listed above. If the iron fasteners corroded when they came into contact with saltwater on an 

unsheathed vessel, it meant that the iron was reactive with the saltwater. If the iron fasteners 

corroded at an accelerated rate when in the presence of lead sheathing and saltwater, it meant 

that the lead acted as a sort of catalyst for the reaction between the iron fasteners and the 

saltwater (Petty 1691). 

What was not known during this period was the chemical reaction known as 

electrochemical corrosion. The reaction is based on the fact that some metals are more noble than 

others, and when the metals are placed in proximity to one another, along with the presence of an 

electrolyte, the less noble metal will sacrifice electrons to the more noble metal, causing the 

decomposition of the less noble metal (Table 1). Iron is less noble than lead, and saltwater was 

an ideal electrolytic solution. In the twentieth century, chemists have proven that these reactions 

were the underlying cause of the accelerated corrosion of iron hardware in the presence of lead 

hull sheathing. However, this information was not known during the 17th century. The reasons 

supplied by the Milled Lead Company claiming that the lead sheathing was not the cause of the 

severe iron deterioration were mostly plausible, given the contemporary state of knowledge 

concerning chemical reactions. 

54 
Table A1 

The Relative Electromotive Force of Selected Metals (After Hamilton 22 February 2004, 

Online Conservation Research Laboratory Manual). 

Noble Metals (More Cathodic) (Gain Electrons) 

Gold [Aurous (+1), and Auric (+3)] 

Silver (+1) 

Copper [Cuprous (+1)] 

Copper [Cupric (+2)] 

Hydrogen (+1) (Neutral) 

Lead [Plumbous (+2), Plumbic (+4)] 

Tin [Stannous (+2), Stannic (+4)] 

Iron [Ferrous (+2)] 

Iron [Ferric (+3)] 

Zinc (+2) 

Base Metals (More Anodic) (Lose Electrons) 

However, the Admiralty determined that lead sheathing was indeed detrimental to the 

iron fasteners, though the causes were unknown. The Milled Lead Company was unable to find a 

tenable solution to the corrosion problem, and was powerless to convince the Admiralty of the 

harmless nature of milled lead as a sheathing material. They began instead to market their 

product for use on the roofs of buildings (Hale 1695: 1). The use of milled lead as a sheathing 

material was discontinued by the end of the 17th century. Various forms of wooden planking and 

chemical coatings were used until the advent of a new metallic sheathing material, copper. 

When problems were detected with new sheathing materials, builders tended to regress 

towards a previous, and often less-effective technology. There were numerous practical (and 

expensive) experiments with sheathing materials, with trials taking precedent over theory, which 

was understandable in a time when a swift solution was required to mitigate the growing damage 

caused by shipworms. Some of the hastily developed technologies, like milled lead sheathing, 

were rushed into production without extensive testing (Hale 1695). While the long-term effects 

of these innovations were unknown, they would not remain so. The initial success and 

subsequent failure of milled lead prompted even more new innovations in sheathing materials 

and manufacture, but, unfortunately, the lessons learned from the abandoned technology were 

ignored when copper was used as an experimental sheathing material nearly a century later. 

55 
COPPER SHEATHING 

The answer to hull protection lay in copper sheathing, which was first suggested as a ship 

sheathing material in 1708 by Charles Parry (Knight 1976: 293). However, the Royal Navy 

Board deemed use of pure copper too expensive and the idea was shelved. The Crown continued 

covering vessels with wooden sheathing, while research into other protective materials 

continued. 

One of these experimental methods of protecting a vessel from shipworm attack was 

called filling (Figure A1). Iron or copper nails with large heads were driven into a hull plank so 

close to each other that their heads were touching. This created a mechanical barrier of rust or 

corrosion product, yet the massive amount of nails needed to fill a significant portion of the hull 

made the treatment prohibitively expensive. This method was used sporadically through the end 

of the 18th century, and was often the only practical way to protect the false keel, where thin 

sheathing would be ripped off upon the slightest contact with the seafloor (Bingeman et al. 2000: 

219-220). Wood remained the dominant method of sheathing, for the widespread acceptance and 

manufacture of pure copper sheathing was still a half-century away. 

Figure A1. The false keel from Invincible, lost in 1758. Example of “filling” a false keel with 

nails to protect it from marine organisms. The nails and their corrosion products 

formed a physical barrier that prevented the Teredo navalis from boring through the 

wood (After Bingeman et al. 2000, 219, Figure 1). 

The first known experiment with copper sheathing in the Royal Navy occurred in 1759, 

when Panther and Norfolk had their false keels clad in copper. The trial was deemed successful, 

and in 1761, Alarm, a thirty-two gun frigate, became the first Royal Navy vessel to be entirely 

sheathed in copper (The first American vessel sheathed with copper was the warship Alliance in 

1781. See Laidlaw 1952: 213-214). The ship was clad in extremely light 12 gauge sheathing that 

was fastened with copper nails (Metallic sheathing is described by the number of ounces in a 

square foot of sheathing. Hence, 12 gauge means 12 ounces per square foot, and 32 gauge refers 

56 
to sheathing that weighs 32 ounces per square foot). After a two-year patrol through the West 

Indies, Alarm returned to England and was thoroughly inspected by the Admiralty. The results 

were quite satisfactory, and the Navy Board ordered several more ships to be clad in heavier 

copper sheathing. The use of fasteners remained problematic, as some ships were being sheathed 

with copper or copper alloy fasteners and others with iron. The copper fasteners experienced the 

least electrochemical corrosion, being closest to the sheathing composition on the electromotive 

force scale. The differing rates of corrosion between sheathing fastened with copper or 

composition alloy nails must have been noted, but there remained no standardization concerning 

fastener use until 1783 (Bingeman et al. 2000: 221-2).

The use of copper sheathing to protect the hulls of vessels continued to grow in the 

1770s. While the copper barrier seemed to solve the problem of marine borers damaging the hull, 

several of the sheathed vessels experienced accelerated corrosion of iron hull fasteners, similar to 

what had afflicted ships sheathed with lead nearly a century before. The electrochemical 

corrosion occurred when the less noble iron decayed in the presence of the more noble copper, 

with the saltwater serving as the electrolytic solution. Since the fasteners were often in concealed 

places, the problem did not come to the attention of the Admiralty until a catastrophe occurred in 

Canada. In late 1782, several Royal Navy warships foundered in a storm off Newfoundland, 

sinking with an enormous loss of life. The ships’ iron fasteners were said to have corroded 

completely, allowing the ships to fold in on themselves in the rough weather. The Admiralty 

ordered a temporary moratorium on sheathing new vessels until a solution to the electrochemical 

corrosion problem could be formulated (Harris 1966: 554-5). It was eventually noticed that when 

the iron fasteners were insulated from the saltwater and other metals (namely the sheathing and 

sheathing nails), they would remain unharmed. The iron fasteners were then insulated with a 

variety of organic barriers, which met with some success. Thick brown paper was placed 

between the copper sheathing and the wooden hull planking, in an attempt to isolate the metals 

from each other (Winfield 1997: 76). However, the copper nails holding the sheathing still 

penetrated into the hull, coming into close proximity with hull fasteners of different alloy 

compositions. Although the rate of corrosion was diminished, it was not eliminated. A new 

solution was required to eliminate the electrochemical corrosion problem between the metallic 

sheathing and fasteners. 

Sacrificial planking could be used in lieu of thick paper to provide a barrier between the 

dissimilar fasteners. The thin wood planking, like that found on the Mica wreck, could also serve 

another purpose, namely as a spacer. By nailing the hull planks to the frames, then nailing the 

sacrificial planking to the hull planks, and finally nailing the sheathing to the sacrificial planking, 

there would be no nail holes that penetrated completely through all three layers. This 

arrangement would prevent leaks if the outer fasteners fell out, while preventing interior 

fasteners from working loose. The sacrificial planking may also have been placed on the vessel 

while it was being re-sheathed. In order to avoid driving sheathing nails through preexisting 

holes, the ship owner may have had sacrificial planking placed on the hull to give the nails a 

better hold. An example of sacrificial planking being applied can be seen in a contemporary 

photograph of a whaling ship being sheathed (Figure A2). 

57 
Figure A2. Carpenters applying pine sheathing before the application of metallic sheathing 

(From Church 1938, Figure 17). 

The copper sheets were also corroded from internal electrochemical reactions. Impurities 

within the copper could preferentially corrode out of the sheet, leaving it weak and porous, but at 

the same time, a certain amount of impurities seemed necessary to make a sheet that lasted 

decades instead of just a few years. George Pattison observed that even if the copper sheathing 

came back from a voyage clean with a light patina, the fasteners, in this case made of an alloy 

containing copper, zinc and tin, would each be home to a barnacle. He described the effect “as 

ornamental white studs upon a green ground.” (Pattison 1829: 94). 

The Royal Navy realized that replacing the iron bolts with copper fasteners would help 

mitigate the differing electromotive forces that caused the iron fasteners to corrode. However, 

copper bolts were too soft to be driven into the massive hardwood timbers used to frame the 

warships. A copper bolt had to be developed with the necessary attributes, namely hardness, to 

be used in place of the iron bolts. A manufacturing method, developed by William Forbes, 

58 
created a hardened copper bolt that was soon used on all Royal Navy ships below the waterline 

(Bingeman et al. 2000: 222-3). By 1785, the problems of electrochemical corrosion between the 

ship’s fasteners and the sheathing appeared to be at an end. 

All of the problems associated with using copper, however, had not been solved. The 

copper sheathing was soft and subject to erosion, especially in areas of the ship where the 

saltwater sped over the surface, namely the bow. The area was sheathed with thicker copper, up 

to thirty-two ounces per square foot, but the friction of the saltwater proved a constant problem 

(Bingeman et al. 2000). A harder surface was needed, but the existing technology of hot rolling a 

metal destroyed some of the crystalline grain structure and its associated hardness. Yet cold 

rolling caused cracking, making the sheets inflexible, and impossible to fit to the compound 

curves of the hull. Cold rolling was more economical, because the additional steps of controlled 

heating and cooling of the metal were not necessary. However, it also took longer to roll the cold 

metal, because it was less malleable (Bingeman et al. 2000). Inventors and metal rollers 

continued their quest to find a metal or alloy that was malleable, yet hard, at low temperatures. 

With copper, they were on the right track, yet the ideal alloy and manufacturing process would 

continue to elude them for nearly another half century. 

MIXED-METAL SHEATHING 

A more durable metallic sheathing that did not damage the vessel’s integrity was 

required. The answer was to be found in alloy sheathing, also known as composition or mixedmetal sheathing. The rapid evolution of mixed-metal sheathing occurred during the early 19th 

century. Alloys of lead, tin, copper, antimony, zinc, and mercury were created and tested. The 

following section provides an overview of mixed-metal sheathing development. 

Zinc was considered as an alternative to copper sheathing because it was inexpensive and 

abundant. A patent record from 1805 relates how three inventors found the ideal combination of 

low heat (200-300 degrees Fahrenheit) and incremental rolling to reduce ingots of zinc into 

sheets of suitable gauge sheathing material (Honson et al. 1806: 251-2). To make the sheets 

flexible enough to fit the curvature of a vessel, they had to be annealed (heated to a low red heat) 

once more and then trimmed to size. Sheets were punched or bored (whether by hand or machine 

is unfortunately not specified) and then fastened with iron nails or spikes to the hull of a vessel. 

However, the use of pure zinc presented several problems for manufacturers desiring to use it as 

a sheathing material. It was prone to cracking and breaking into pieces if rolled cold, but when 

rolled at high heat it lost some of its desired metallurgical qualities, namely hardness and the 

associated durability (Honson et al. 1806). 

The patent recommended choosing a metallic fastener that was as close to zinc as 

possible on the electromotive force scale, in this case, iron. Pure zinc did not have the 

mechanical strength to serve as a fastener. Zinc coated iron nails could also be employed to 

reduce the inherent galvanic corrosion caused by using dissimilar metals. While theoretically 

possible as a sheathing scheme, the labor and cost associated with making the composite 

fasteners prohibited the economic viability of zinc sheathing and fasteners. It is also necessary to 

note that as soon as the thin zinc plating dissolved from the iron nails, the original problem of 

rapid corrosion of dissimilar metals in close proximity would return (Honson et al. 1806). 

59 
I.R. Butts, author of a shipbuilding treatise first published in 1856, included a section on 

sheathing technologies. He agreed that zinc sheathing was effective for preventing shipworm 

attack and marine growth. Concerning its effectiveness, Butts wrote that “Shipmasters certify 

that it continues as clean as yellow metal.” (Butts 1980: 145). Butts claimed that it lasted longer 

than copper and alloyed sheathing, while being considerably cheaper. However, he cited its use 

for sheathing ships as a recent introduction (Butts 1980: 77). The gap Butts alluded to, between 

time of patent and manufacture, was almost 40 years, indicating that there was a considerable 

amount of time between the application for the patent, and the actual manufacture and marketing 

of that product. 

In 1817, William Collins applied for a patent concerning the right to manufacture a new 

mixed-metal sheathing. The patent claimed manufacturing rights to an alloy of 80 percent copper 

and 20 percent tin. The bronze alloy sheathing was hailed as superior to copper, yet offered no 

specifics concerning durability. Collins left his patent curiously vague, stating “I do not confine 

myself to any precise mixture of those metals [copper and tin], or exclude any addition of other 

metals, or semi metals, provided the properties of the bronze metal are preserved.” (Collins 

1818: 67-8). Collins appeared not to have had any specific knowledge of ship sheathing 

manufacture or metallurgy. His patent was a speculative attempt to grab a portion of the market 

for a product that lacked design parameters. Perhaps Collins was banking on another inventor 

unknowingly developing a sheathing that would infringe on his patent, in order to obtain 

royalties. 

The late 1820s and early 1830s witnessed the most rapid advancements in mixed-metal 

sheathing technology. A range of metals and alloys were employed. The need for a durable and 

inexpensive sheathing was becoming more acute as naval and merchant vessels and fleets grew 

in size and number, sailed further, and remained away from their homeports for extended periods 

of time, especially whalers and explorers. By this time, Teredo worms, barnacles, and fouling 

weeds were nearly ubiquitous, being spread from their warm native waters to most of the world’s 

temperate ports. 

In 1829, American inventor John Revere developed a system of sheathing vessels with 

iron sheets. The iron, which would normally aggressively corrode in salt water, was preserved by 

the attachment of a sacrificial metal. Zinc, being less noble than iron, sacrificed electrons to the 

iron, preventing its decay. After two years at sea, the bottom of an iron sheathed hull was 

described as having a “clean, and even bright surface.” (Pattison 1829: 94-5). There was little 

widespread use of iron sheathing, however, probably due to its expense and the introduction of 

Muntz metal several years later. 

The method for sheathing a vessel in iron was identical to that for copper, with the added 

step of attaching a small block of zinc (5 percent of the surface area of each iron sheet). The 

inexpensive zinc was riveted or soldered on both the internal and external surfaces of the sheet. 

To attach the sheathing to the hull, the patent specifies the use of iron nails with hollow domed 

heads, the underside of which were filled with melted tin (Pattison 1829). They were driven 

through the sheathing until they were flush with the planking, with the tin flattening out to form a 

washer, effectively isolating the zinc and iron (Pattison 1829). The system may have been 

effective, but it was considerably more labor-intensive then pure copper sheathing, and hence 

more expensive. 

60 
In 1830, John Gray developed a new process for mechanically punching sheets of copper, 

allowing the heads of the spikes to be countersunk in preformed beveled holes. The countersunk 

depression accepted the nail and prevented the sheet from depressing around the fastener, which 

would normally be left proud. When driven to the proper depth, the nail was flush with the 

exterior surface of the sheathing. Such a technique would make a more streamlined hull, with the 

surface being smooth and uninterrupted by nail heads. The machine being patented contained a 

template, which allowed holes to be punched at regular intervals, making the sheets identical 

(Gray 1830: 172-3). The use of pre-punched sheathing speeded up the whole process and 

lessened the cost of labor for sheathing, although the manufacturer could charge more for such a 

convenient feature. The presence of a mechanically punched sheet of pure copper sheathing 

could be used as a temporal diagnostic artifact for archaeological studies. 

The following year, Matthew Uzielli applied for a patent covering an alloy of one 

hundred parts copper and five to seven parts tin (Uzielli 1831: 137-9). He claimed the bronze 

alloy had superior hardness over copper and was less prone to oxidation. To make it easier to 

roll, Uzielli added one to two parts of lead and zinc. The alloy was smelted and then poured 

between two large granite slabs, which pressed the molten metal into a sheet approximately half 

an inch thick. The thin ingot was cut and then annealed. The ingot was heated again, cooled, and 

then rolled. This process was repeated twelve to fifteen times, until the sheet reached the desired 

thickness. The sheets were then cut or trimmed into a standard dimension. At this point the gauge 

or weight of the sheathing was stamped on the sheets, often near a corner. 

In the same year, John Revere applied for another patent concerning an alloy that was 

radically different from Uzielli’s creation. The alloy, 95 percent zinc and 5 percent copper, was 

more durable than pure zinc, and more resistant to corrosion than pure copper. There was, 

however, a problem in combining these two metals, as the zinc tended to combust when added to 

molten copper. Revere solved this problem by adding salt or pulverized charcoal to the mixture 

to drive off the oxygen. Without oxygen, the zinc failed to combust. With regard to the resulting 

brass sheathing alloy, Revere stated that, “its liability to corrode is essentially diminished 

(Revere 1831: 29). He included a note in the patent that called for nails to be made from the same 

material. If the sheathing and fasteners used to cover a vessel were of identical composition, then 

the galvanic action between them would be negligible, and part of the problem with 

electrochemical corrosion on the vessel would be solved. However, zinc is not a hard or 

mechanically strong metal, and when coupled with such a small amount of copper, the alloyed 

material would have been far too weak to be used for structural fasteners. Revere’s alloy could 

have been used for the sheathing nails (usually one and one quarter inches in length), but the 

underlying problem of dissimilar metals (iron hull fasteners) in close proximity still remained 

(Revere 1831). To create a barrier between the iron fasteners and the sheathing, sheets of heavy 

tar paper or felt were laid next to the hull, with the short sheathing nails (hopefully) not coming 

in contact with the iron. A layer of thin planking was also used as an alternative to paper or felt. 

The use of lead as a sheathing material made one last appearance before being 

permanently shelved. Baron Charles Wetterstadt alloyed one hundred parts of lead and ten parts 

of antimony to form a harder and more durable lead sheathing. The mixed-metal was then cold 

rolled and painted with a molten concoction of 85 percent mercury, 5 percent antimony, and 10 

percent lead. The sheets were rolled once again to smooth over the finish. The result was a plated 

sheet of milled lead that was of a consistent thickness, flexible, and yet had a hard surface 

61 
(Wetterstadt 1832: 411-2). However, the sheathing was not adopted, likely because of the high 

cost of materials and the labor-intensive manufacturing process, not to mention the toxicity of 

the combined materials (Wetterstadt 1832). 

Despite the galvanic problems with the iron fasteners (bronze fasteners had not been 

universally adopted), copper sheathing remained the most accepted and widely used material 

through the middle of the 19th century. Nearly all of the practical composites were more 

expensive in terms of materials and manufacturing cost. They offered an untested remedy to the 

problem of finding effective hull protection. Ship builders were unwilling to stake their 

reputation and livelihood on an unproven technology. Conservatism in technological adoption 

would be a formidable hurdle that the first successful, widely adopted mixed-metal sheathing 

would have to overcome. 

A new mixed-metal sheathing appeared in 1832. The mixture of 50 percent copper and 

50 percent zinc was patented by Birmingham industrialist George F. Muntz (Muntz 1833: 195-

6). Zinc and copper were smelted together and then rolled either hot or cold. The fact that it 

could be rolled without heating resulted in a significant savings in manufacturing cost. This 

savings, coupled with the use of a large proportion of zinc, which was considerably cheaper than 

copper, resulted in a relatively inexpensive sheathing. The metal’s attributes included superior 

flexibility and surface hardness when compared to pure copper or pure zinc sheathing. Muntz’s 

new metal was less prone to oxidation than copper or pure zinc, yet it exfoliated just enough 

surface scale to inhibit the attachment of barnacles and weeds (Crothers 1997: 329). To avoid the 

problems associated with electrochemical corrosion, Muntz patented and produced mechanically 

hardened fasteners of the same composition in late 1832 (Muntz 1834: 44-5).

The new sheathing, called 'yellow metal' because of its bright golden color, seemed ideal 

in every respect, yet it to took more than two decades to become established. One of the 

difficulties plaguing Muntz was consistently mixing the exact proportions required to make the 

alloy. Experienced metallurgists and metal rollers were in short supply. If the new alloy varied 

by more than 1 percent from the stated proportions, its properties were radically altered. Muntz 

continued to develop the metal, finally settling on an alloy of 60 percent copper and 40 percent 

zinc (For a full description of the life of George Muntz and the development of his alloy, refer to 

Flick 1973: 70-88, and Staniforth 1985: 21-48). 

All of the extant Muntz metal samples tested by 

the author were found to contain around 62.5 percent copper and 37.5 percent zinc (Appendix 3 

contains the composition analysis of selected metallic hull sheathing samples).

It was difficult to gain converts to the new sheathing technology in the early 1830s. 

According to a shipbuilding treaty by I.R. Butts, copper hull sheathing lasted an average of four 

years, zinc six, and yellow metal a mere three (Butts 1980: 83). Muntz was forced to sell the 

unproven technology below cost or even give it away in order to get his product out in public 

view. There were also initial problems with the alloy’s consistency. If two ships sailed to the 

same distant port, and both were sheathed in Muntz metal, one might return with bright 

sheathing, while the other would have corroded to the point of being useless. The sheets of both 

ships looked identical at the time of manufacture, but a slight difference in composition made 

one much more susceptible to corrosion. Despite this inconsistency, Muntz’s economical yellow 

metal slowly gained popularity through the late 1830s and 1840s, becoming nearly ubiquitous by 

1855. The use of Muntz metal lasted until the advent and widespread use of iron-hulled ships. 

62 
The mixed-metal sheathing continued to be used on both large and small wooden hulled vessels 

into the early twentieth century. 

The invention and eventual successful marketing of Muntz metal did not inhibit other 

inventors from continuing to submit patent applications for new mixed metal concoctions. In 

1835, a bronze sheathing was created in France that consisted of six to ten percent (by weight) 

tin added to copper (No author 1835: 206-8). The resulting bronze alloy was hard and difficult to 

roll, but it claimed to be twice as durable as copper while being only two-thirds as thick (the 

average copper sheathing or Muntz metal was 28-32 ounces per square foot, while hard bronze 

was 18-20 ounces per square foot). The manufacturers claimed long-term savings because of the 

increased durability, but ship owners were either unwilling or unable to pay the increased 

manufacturing expenses up front. The makers tried unsuccessfully to target the whaling industry, 

which required durable sheathing for their multi-year voyages. However, after 1855, the 

acceptance of Muntz metal was beginning to control the ship sheathing market. 

APPLICATION OF METALLIC SHEATHING 

Henry Hall, a special agent for the United States Census Office, compiled a vast report on the 

shipbuilding in the United States for the 10th Census in 1880. He visited many shipyards along 

the Eastern seaboard, and filed a report concerning the application of metallic sheathing. He 

noted: 

The process of putting on is as follows: The bottom of the hull is first made 

smooth; and if it is an old vessel, the worn copper is stripped off with chisels and 

adzes, the sails removed, and the surface of the planking is scraped clean, the old 

metal and nails being sent off for sale. The hull is then either sheathed with a light 

planking, or is covered with cement or graved with tar and papered or felted. 

Sheathing was also in vogue, and is still common; but papering or felting is the 

new idea, and is extensively practiced, as it is claimed that worms will not go 

through paper. The sheets of metal are meanwhile being prepared by punching 

either two, three, or four rows of holes along their edges for nailing them on. The 

heaviest thicknesses are put on at the bow as far back as the foremast at the loadline, but no farther aft at the keel than the forefoot. The metal of the next weight 

goes on aft of that, the after boundary of this thickness being a line from the 

mainmast at the load-line to the heel of the foremast at the keel, and grows lighter 

yet as the men work aft along the hull. The rudder and the keel are both covered 

with heavy metal. The sheets lap one inch. A bark of 310 tons requires about 

1,025 sheets of metal, weighing 6,300 pounds, and 770 pounds of composition 

nails (Hall 1884: 27). 

Hall included a table detailing the amount and gauge of metallic sheathing necessary to 

sheath barks and schooners of various tonnages. A 130 ton schooner, similar to the Mica 

shipwreck, required 90 sheets of 28 gauge, 82 sheets of 26 gauge, 100 sheets of 24 gauge, 53 

sheets of 22 gauge, 97 sheets of 20 gauge and 169 sheets of 18 gauge metallic sheathing. A total 

63 
of 591 sheets would be required, with an aggregate weight of 1,741 kilograms (3,835 pounds) 

(Hall 1884: 27). 

Sheathing ships was a major industry in shipyards around New York. In 1884, 

shipwrights removed and replaced metallic sheathing on 297 vessels. The shipwrights used 

135,746 kilograms (299,000 pounds) of sheathing, with large sailing ships requiring between 

10,442 to 11,804 kilograms (23,000 to 26,000 pounds) and smaller schooners using between 

2,270 and 3,632 kilograms (5,000 and 8,000 pounds). Hall notes that approximately half of the 

metallic sheathing used was of foreign manufacture, with foreign made sheathing costing 26 

cents per kilogram (13 cents per pound), and American made sheathing running 32 to 34 cents 

per kilogram (16 to 17 cents per pound). Metallic sheathing was also used for lining the holds of 

grain carriers (Hall 1884: 118). 

Around New York, Hall reported that ship owners purchased the required amount of 

sheathing and then had it punched by machine at a local shop. In Baltimore, Hall relates how a 

sheathing machine was used, but discontinued after the men objected to it (the reason was 

unspecified), and workers returned to punching the sheets by hand (Hall 1884: 127). 

Sheathing would typically be applied either while in dry dock, or when a vessel was hove 

down. Due to the chronic shortage of sheathing material in the United States, ships would often 

be built and outfitted along the Eastern seaboard and then sailed to England for their sheathing. 

The famous USS Constitution was sheathed in 1795 with copper imported from England 

(Laidlaw 1952: 214). 

In the mid 19th century, the sheathing process began near the keel or just below the 

waterline (Crothers 1997). The area around the waterline was subject to increased wear from 

rubbing against docks, anchor lines, or other vessels, as well as being subject to the most friction 

from the seawater flowing past. The area was protected by thick wooden planking. The seams 

were caulked and then payed with tar. A layer of felt or heavy paper would then be laid down on 

the tar. The worn protective planking could be removed and replaced without placing the ship in 

a dry dock. 

Metallic sheathing was applied over the bottom of the keel and then the false keel was 

attached and either sheathed or more likely filled or studded with nails. This was an intentional 

design feature. If the false keel was damaged or ripped off, the copper-sheathed keel would 

prevent the entrance of the marine borers (Crothers 1997: 330). The hull sheathing was 

overlapped so that, facing the bow, the leading edge of a sheet was always tucked under the one 

immediately forward. The standard overlap was 3-4 centimeters (1-1.5 inches) on both the 

horizontal and vertical axes. The amount would depend on where the sheathing began. If at the 

keel, then the top edge of a sheet would be tucked under the next highest layer. In areas of 

compound curves, sheets would be trimmed or overlapped a great deal. The latter obviously used 

more material, but was stronger and more durable. The most important consideration was 

sleekness, and, to this end, all leading edges were tucked under to avoid being ripped off during 

sailing (Crothers 1997). 

Pure copper and Muntz metal sheathing was attached using copper alloy nails. Iron 

fasteners were used to hold certain types of metallic sheathing, namely lead. After being driven 

64 
through the sheathing and into the planking, the iron formed a corrosion product that interlocked 

with the wood, enhancing the strength of the hold. Copper alloy fasteners tended to corrode 

lightly, and the corrosion products did not combine with the wood to grip the fastener. The 

copper alloy fasteners would eventually work loose (Whiteman 1971). A sheathing nail 

advertisement from 1806 revealed how inventor Samuel Guppy modified the existing copper 

alloy nails to perform as well as the iron fasteners (Figure A3). The patent nails had jagged or 

barbed surfaces which allowed the copper alloy fasteners to tightly grip the wood and not work 

loose (Whiteman 1971: 39). 

Figure A3. A sheathing nail advertisement from 1806. It revealed how inventor Samuel Guppy 

modified copper alloy nails to perform as well as iron fasteners (After Whiteman 

1971, 39). 

Besides containing details of the new sheathing nails, the Guppy advertisement listed the 

advantages of, and rules for, using the new hammer-hardened fasteners instead of the older, cast 

copper, nails. Guppy claimed that unhardened cast copper nails had an abnormally high breakage 

rate: 

No one need be told, the closer the Copper is fastened to the bottom the better—

that a smooth surface...will last twice as long, and a ship sail much faster, than 

with a rough bottom, and uneven surface; and it is impossible to fasten the Copper 

close with cast nails, for if they are driven up, the heads of half will fly off, in 

65 
consequence of the brittle nature of the metal; the head not being close will 

impede sailing, catch grass, weeds. (Whiteman 1971: 39). 

Guppy claimed that his hammer-hardened nails had a breakage rate of one in a thousand. 

Even though the breakage rate seemed dubious, Guppy’s nails used less metal than a comparable 

cast fastener and they lasted longer. He acknowledged that his nails were twice as expensive as 

cast nails, but argued that the investment would pay off in the long run. Guppy noted that, on 

average, 70 nails were used to attach each sheet of sheathing to the hull (Whiteman 1971: 39).

There was an average of 80 nail heads visible on each of the Mica wreck’s copper sheathing 

sheets. 

The use of cast nails created larger holes in the sheathing and planking, and, because the 

nails lacked barbs, they could rapidly work themselves loose, causing the sheathing to separate 

from the hull. Guppy continued on the detrimental effects of cast copper nails: 

The injury done to ships’ bottoms, as well as the copper, by the use of large cast 

nails, has been the subject of great complaint; and barnacles are frequently found 

on the heads of each cast nail, which very much impede the ship’s 

sailing.”(Whiteman 1971: 39)[original italics] 

The barnacles increased the drag of the hull, reducing the speed and handling capabilities 

of the vessel. Fasteners that worked loose allowed the sheet to flex. This loose sheathing fatigued 

the metal around each hole, eventually causing the sheet to be ripped off the hull in rough 

weather (Whiteman 1971: 39). 

In the fastener advertisement, Guppy offered some interesting information concerning the 

recycling of metallic sheathing and the method of punching and applying copper sheets to the 

hull. When the sheathing had to be replaced, the vessel was placed in dry dock and manually 

stripped of all sheathing and nails. Guppy claimed that his copper fasteners could be removed 

and melted with the sheathing, because they were both pure copper (Whiteman 1971: 39). The 

cast nails, like those found on the Mica shipwreck, were a composition of copper, tin, and zinc. 

The cast composition nails contained up to 20 percent impurities, lessening the value of the 

recycled material (zinc and tin were worth less than copper). The composition nails also had to 

be removed by hand from the pure copper sheets before they could be melted down, with the 

additional labor lessening the economic incentive to recycle (Whiteman 1971, 39). 

During the period of Guppy’s advertisement, the early 19th century, sheathing a new or 

recently stripped hull was accomplished in the following manner: The sheets were placed on a 

table and struck with a punch that was slightly smaller than the diameter of the fastener to be 

used. Punching the holes was necessary to avoid creating a depression by trying to force a nail 

through the copper sheet. The depressions, like the barnacles, decreased the sleekness of the hull. 

The sheet was then held against the hull, and a smaller punch was used to make a starter hole in 

the plank behind each hole in the copper sheet. This hole was necessary to prevent the fastener 

from cracking or splitting the underlying hull planking. Guppy said that the punch should 

penetrate no further than 1 centimeter (0.4 inches). Accordingly, the sheathing nails found on the 

Mica shipwreck were, on average, 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) in length. In areas of compound 

66 
curves or external hull fittings, the sheathing had to be custom cut and punched (Whiteman 1971: 

39). 

THE FUTURE OF METALLIC SHEATHING RESEARCH 

The study of the development of mixed-metal sheathing technology has provided archaeologists 

and historians with another diagnostic tool for dating shipwrecks. When a piece of sheathing is 

recovered, composition analysis can be performed that gives the exact amounts of the constituent 

elements. The accuracy of the composition tests, coupled with analysis of the metallic grain 

structure, can create a sort of fingerprint for each sheathing sample. The fingerprints can be used 

to identify two ships that were sheathed from the same lot of metal or even identify differences 

in sheathing origin across the hull of a single vessel. Gauge analysis can reveal patterns of 

thickness and identify areas where the sheathing was subject to accelerated corrosion or erosion. 

The fingerprints can also be compared to patent records or other known examples from precisely 

dated shipwrecks. It is possible to look at the fastening pattern and determine whether the 

sheathing was applied before or after the advent of mechanical punching. The fasteners 

themselves can be diagnostic. Manufacturers often stamped the heads of large nails and bolts 

with their company name or the patent date. Information concerning sheathing technology has 

been used to help identify and date several shipwrecks, and it is hoped that the trend will 

continue. Metallic sheathing is a complex artifact that, with continued research, will offer much 

new information to nautical archaeologists. 

67 
7:0 APPENDIX 2: MICA SHIPWRECK ARTIFACT CATALOG by Toby Jones 

ARTIFACT 1 

Description: Fragment of copper hull sheathing 

Dimensions: 35.0 centimeters x 18.3 centimeters 

Notes: Fragment appears to be the side edge of a sheet, as two corners are visible. 17 fastener 

holes visible. Sheathing overlap line along the upper edge. Largest fragment of hull sheathing 

retrieved. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

69 
ARTIFACT 2 

Description: Fragment of copper hull sheathing 

Dimensions: 26.5 centimeters x 12.0 centimeters 

Features: 4 fastener holes visible, no edges evident 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

70 
ARTIFACT 3 

Description: Fragment of copper hull sheathing 

Dimensions: 14.5 centimeters x 10.8 centimeters 

Notes: One edge visible, possibly a corner fragment. 6 fastener holes visible. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

71 
ARTIFACT 4 

Description: Fragment of copper hull sheathing 

Dimensions: 8.5 centimeters x 8.2 centimeters 

Notes: 2 fastener holes visible, 1 fastener, no edges. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

72 
ARTIFACT 5 

Description: Fragment of copper hull sheathing 

Dimensions: 14.5 centimeters x 7.5 centimeters 

Notes: 4 nail holes, no edges. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

73 
ARTIFACT 6 

Description: Copper alloy sheathing fasteners 

Dimensions: 14.5 centimeters x 10.8 centimeters 

2.8-3.8 centimeters in length 

0.4 centimeter average shank diameter 

Notes: Flat head, tapered shank. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

74 
ARTIFACT 7 

Description: Lead Hawse Pipe 

Dimensions: 41.0 centimeters x 7.0 centimeters x 2.0 centimeters 

Notes: Casting seams, cut marks and internal wear are evident. 

Photograph by Cesar Arias. 

75 
8:0 APPENDIX 3: METALLIC SHEATHING STUDY RESULTS by Toby Jones 

The following appendix provides information on the elemental composition of select 

metallic ship sheathing and fastener samples. The original reports received from the Texas 

A&M University, Agriculture Program Laboratories, are presented as Figures C1 and C2. 

Following tables represent a comparative analysis of the copper sheathing samples and 

lead artifacts with comparable archaeological examples. 

77 
Figure C1. A copy of the original report of the metal analysis carried out on the copper 

nail specimens from the Mica Shipwreck. 

78 
Figure C2. A copy of the original report of the metal analysis carried out on the copper 

sheathing specimens from the Mica Shipwreck. 

79 
Table C1. 

Original Lab Analysis Results for the Archaeological Samples from Nautical Contexts Presente

Tables C2, C3, C4 and C5. (below).

SHIPWRECK Analysis As 

(wt%) 

Sn 

(wt%)

Pb 

(wt%) 

Bi 

(wt%)

Cu 

(wt%)

Zn 

(wt%)

Fe 

(wt%) 

Total 

(wt%) 

As 

(at%)

Sn 

(at%)

Pb 

(at%)

(

Pb samples LLD (Lower limits of detection) 

0.10 0.09 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.05 

Pilar 1619 01_pt1 0.00 0.00 99.28 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.00 99.45 0.00 0.00 99.79 Pilar 1619 01_pt2 0.01 0.00 98.78 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.00 98.99 0.04 0.01 99.55 Modern Lead 26_point1_ 

fixed 

0.01 0.12 100.03 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.00 100.33 0.02 0.20 99.53 

80

Mica Hawse Pipe 

27_pt1 0.00 0.05 100.68 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.02 100.99 0.00 0.08 99.16 

Mica Hawse Pipe 

27_pt2 0.00 0.07 99.84 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 100.13 0.00 0.12 99.62 Cu samples LLD (Lower limits of detection) 

0.03 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.04 

Mica Sheathing 02_pt1 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.32 0.00 0.02 99.62 0.24 0.00 0.00 
Table C1. 

Original Lab Analysis Results for the Archaeological Samples from Nautical Contexts Presente

Tables C2, C3, C4 and C5 (continued).

SHIPWRECK Analysis As 

(wt%) 

Sn 

(wt%)

Pb 

(wt%) 

Bi 

(wt%)

Cu 

(wt%)

Zn 

(wt%)

Fe 

(wt%) 

Total 

(wt%) 

As 

(at%)

Sn 

(at%)

Pb 

(at%)

(

Mica Sheathing 02_pt2 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.00 99.00 0.00 0.00 99.38 0.25 0.00 0.03 Mica Sheathing 03_pt1 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.00 98.92 0.00 0.01 99.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 Mica Sheathing 03_pt2 0.13 0.02 0.06 0.01 99.39 0.00 0.00 99.61 0.11 0.01 0.02 Mica Sheathing 04_pt1 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.06 99.84 0.00 0.00 100.17 0.19 0.00 0.01 Mica Sheathing 04_pt2 0.23 0.01 0.03 0.04 99.05 0.00 0.01 99.37 0.20 0.01 0.01 Mica Sheathing 05_pt1 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.08 99.78 0.00 0.00 100.16 0.22 0.00 0.01 Mica Sheathing 05_pt2 0.22 0.01 0.02 0.00 99.37 0.00 0.00 99.62 0.19 0.01 0.00 Mica Fasteners 06_pt1_ 

moving 

810.31 5.30 0.77 0.21 84.79 7.45 0.04 98.87 0.28 2.97 0.25 

Mica Fasteners 07_pt1_ 

moving 

0.28 5.17 0.38 0.14 84.53 8.09 0.04 98.63 0.25 2.89 0.12 

Mica Sheathing 08_pt1 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.02 99.91 0.00 0.01 100.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 Mica Sheathing 08_pt2 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.46 0.00 0.00 99.59 0.10 0.00 0.00 Mica Sheathing 09_pt1 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.17 0.01 0.00 100.32 0.12 0.00 0.00 Mica Sheathing 09_pt2 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 99.35 0.00 0.00 99.50 0.11 0.00 0.00 USS Alabama 10_pt1 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 100.71 0.00 0.00 100.77 0.04 0.00 0.01 USS Alabama 10_pt2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 100.54 0.00 0.00 100.72 0.04 0.03 0.02 De Rosa Samples 

11_pt1 0.04 0.00 0.57 0.00 62.75 37.08 0.07 100.51 0.03 0.00 0.18 

De Rosa 11_pt2 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 62.49 37.95 0.07 100.61 0.01 0.01 0.00 
82

Table C1. 

Original Lab Analysis Results for the Archaeological Samples from Nautical Contexts Presente

SHIPWRECK Analysis As 

(wt%) 

Sn 

(wt%)

Pb 

(wt%) 

Bi 

(wt%)

Cu 

(wt%)

Zn 

(wt%)

Fe 

(wt%) 

Total 

(wt%) 

 As 

(at%)

Sn 

(at%)

Pb 

(at%)

(

Tables C2, C3, C4 and C5 (continued).

Samples De Rosa Samples 

12_pt1 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.90 37.22 0.08 100.23 0.02 0.00 0.00 

De Rosa Samples 

12_pt2 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 63.03 37.13 0.09 100.37 0.02 0.01 0.01 

Robert 13_pt1 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 62.13 37.19 0.06 99.44 0.02 0.02 0.00 Robert 13_pt2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 62.94 36.92 0.08 99.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 De BraakSheathing 

14_pt1 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.04 98.69 0.00 0.02 99.29 0.46 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

14_pt2 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.00 99.29 0.03 0.00 99.98 0.55 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

15_pt1 0.64 0.01 0.07 0.01 98.82 0.00 0.03 99.58 0.55 0.01 0.02 

De BraakSheathing 

15_pt2 0.58 0.00 0.06 0.08 99.41 0.00 0.00 100.13 0.49 0.00 0.02 

De BraakSheathing 

16_pt1 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.02 99.24 0.00 0.00 99.93 0.56 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

16_pt2 0.69 0.00 0.01 0.00 97.73 0.00 0.00 98.43 0.59 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

17_pt1 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.48 0.00 0.01 100.17 0.57 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

17_pt2 0.67 0.00 0.06 0.00 99.23 0.00 0.00 99.96 0.57 0.00 0.02 
Table C1. 

Original Lab Analysis Results for the Archaeological Samples from Nautical Contexts Presente

Tables C2, C3, C4 and C5 (continued).

SHIPWRECK Analysis As 

(wt%) 

Sn 

(wt%)

Pb 

(wt%) 

Bi 

(wt%)

Cu 

(wt%)

Zn 

(wt%)

Fe 

(wt%) 

Total 

(wt%) 

As 

(at%)

Sn 

(at%)

Pb 

(at%)

(

De BraakSheathing 

18_pt1 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.03 99.15 0.00 0.01 99.77 0.49 0.00 0.00 

De BraakSheathing 

18_pt2 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.00 99.19 0.02 0.00 99.85 0.47 0.00 0.03 

De BraakSheathing 

19_pt1_ fixed 

0.43 0.00 0.03 0.11 95.77 0.00 0.02 96.36 0.38 0.00 0.01 

De BraakSheathing 

19_pt2_ moving 

0.70 0.00 0.19 0.20 96.25 0.00 0.01 97.35 0.61 0.00 0.06 

De BraakSheathing 

20_point1_ fixed 

0.54 0.00 0.05 0.03 98.04 0.00 0.00 98.66 0.47 0.00 0.02 

De BraakSheathing 

21_point1_ fixed 

0.68 0.00 0.04 0.00 97.55 0.00 0.00 98.27 0.59 0.00 0.01 

De BraakSheathing 

22_point1_ fixed 

0.64 0.01 0.09 0.01 97.67 0.00 0.01 98.43 0.56 0.00 0.03 

De BraakFasteners 

23_pt1_ moving 

0.23 8.30 0.84 0.08 87.74 1.34 0.02 98.55 0.21 4.73 0.27 

De BraakFasteners 

24_pt1_ moving 

0.58 8.25 0.54 0.03 88.78 0.98 0.03 99.19 0.52 4.66 0.18 

De Braak Fasteners 

25_pt1_ moving 

0.26 9.27 0.77 0.09 87.58 0.62 0.01 98.60 0.24 5.30 0.25 

83
Table C2. 

A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Copper Sheathing Samples 

from Nautical Contexts* 

Ship/Wreck, Dates** Composition Trace Elements 

De Braak Sheathing 1798 98.5 percent Cu As*** 

De Braak Fasteners 1798 88.0 percent Cu, 8.6 

percent Sn, 1.0 percent Zn 

As, Pb 

Mica Sheathing 99.5 percent Cu As 

Mica Fasteners 84.7 percent Cu, 5.3 

percent Sn, 7.8 percent Zn 

As, Pb, Bi 

Cleopatra’s Barge 1816/1824 98.0 percent Cu, 2.0 

percent Pb 

USS Alabama 1819/1922 100.0 percent Cu 

Spring of Whitby 1824 93.1 percent Cu 

Steamboat Washington 1825/1831 100.0 percent Cu 

Niantic 1835/1851 100.0 percent Cu 

General Harrison 1840/1851 100.0 percent Cu 

* For sources of the information presented here see Table 8:3. - 5. 

** The first date reflects the construction or launch date, while the second date denotes 

the time of loss. If only one date is listed, it is the date of loss. If no dates are listed, than 

none are known. 

*** As or Arsenic is a naturally occurring trace element commonly found in copper ore. 

84 
Table C3. 

A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Copper Alloy Sheathing Samples 

from Nautical Contexts 

 

Ship/Wreck, Dates* Composition Trace Elements 

De Rosa Samples 62.7 percent Cu, 37.2 

percent Zn 

Pb 

Robert*1800 62.5 percent Cu 

King Philip 1856/1878 61.2 percent Cu, 37.9 

percent Zn 

Pb, Sn 

Mary Celeste 1864/1886 Muntz** 

Thomas F. Bayard 1880/2002 Muntz 

* The date of loss for the Robert is suspect, because Muntz metal was not invented until 

1832. 

** Muntz metal was typically a mixture 60 % Cu and 40 % Zn. 

Table C4. 

A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeological Lead Sheathing and Lead Artifacts 

from Nautical Contexts 

Ship/Wreck, Dates* Composition Trace Elements 

Pilar 1619 99.0 percent Pb 

Mica Hawse Pipe 100.0 percent Pb Cu, Bi 

Modern lead 100.0 percent Pb Sn 

85 
Table C5. 

Sources for the Metallic Sample/Information Sheets Provided in 

Tables C1, C2, C3 and C4. 

Metallic Sample Source Data Type 

De Braak Sheathing Charles Fithian Sample 

De Braak Fasteners Charles Fithian Sample 

Mica Sheathing Toby Jones Sample 

Mica Fasteners Toby Jones Sample 

Cleopatra’s Barge Paul Johnston Information 

USS Alabama Kevin Crisman Sample 

Spring of Whitby James Sinclair Sample 

Steamboat Washington Peter Johnson Information 

Niantic James Delgado Information 

General Harrison James Delgado Information 

De Rosa Samples Horatio De Rosa Information/ Sample 

Robert James Sinclair Sample 

King Philip James Delgado Information 

Mary Celeste James Delgado Information 

Thomas F. Bayard James Delgado Information 

Pilar Carol Tedesco Sample 

Mica Hawse Pipe Toby Jones Sample 

Modern lead Toby Jones Sample 

86 
9:0 APPENDIX 4: HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RIGGING 

by Toby Jones 

The Mica shipwreck field investigation provided relatively little direct evidence 

concerning the design, construction, and rig of the vessel. However, as a research exercise the 

scant archaeological evidence could be combined with historical data to construct a hypothetical 

sailing rig. The fact that the small vessel was sheathed with expensive copper suggests that it 

was worth sheathing, meaning that it was well built. The fine lines and fast hull created by the 

metallic sheathing would best be complemented by a schooner rig. The following hypothetical 

rigging reconstruction offers a possible example of what the Mica vessel might have looked like 

and how it might have been rigged. The example should not be taken as fact, but should 

hopefully serve as a foundation for future research on the Mica shipwreck. 

The following section outlines the methods undertaken during the Mica shipwreck 

rigging reconstruction. Contemporary sources were researched and analyzed to determine a 

plausible design and rig for a fast sailing coastal merchant schooner in the early nineteenth 

century. The vessel was reconstructed using the hull profile of the contemporary merchant 

schooner Glasgow (Figure D1). The accompanying drawing shows the masts, spars, running 

rigging and standing rigging. The chapter also provides justifications for the rigging choices 

depicted in the drawing. 

Armed with information about vessel dimensions, probable vessel origin and rig type, it 

was possible to reconstruct the ship’s rig by utilizing contemporary sources on early nineteenthcentury merchant schooner rigging and ship construction. The sources included photographs of 

aging schooners taken in the mid-nineteenth century, drawings and paintings of schooners, and 

contemporary tables of salient ship rigging dimensions and marine architecture treatises. 

Secondary sources were useful because they reprinted photographs and plates from rare 

works, as was the case with the Peter Hedderwick treatise on marine architecture. The 

Hedderwick treatise, reprinted in part in a recent work by David R. MacGregor, provided useful 

information concerning the merchant schooner Glasgow of 151 tons that was built in 1826 

(MacGregor 1997: 37-40). The vessel, a two-masted topsail schooner, had a length on deck of 

21.9 meters (72 feet) and a length on the keel of 20.5 meters (67 feet), exactly matching the 

length dimensions of the Mica shipwreck. The Glasgow hull form, with its full entrance and 

extremely narrow run, provided an excellent fit with the extant Mica hull. For those reasons, the 

merchant schooner depicted on plate XXVI of Hedderwick’s treatise was chosen to be the hull 

form of the Mica vessel rigging reconstruction (MacGregor 1997: 39). 

87 
Figure D1. Peter Hedderwick’s 1826 rigging plan for Glasgow, a schooner of 151 tons (From 

MacGregor 1997: 39). 

Because no rigging elements, with the exception of two sets of chainplates, were 

identified during the investigation of the Mica wreck, the placement of these elements, as well as 

their dimensions, was a matter of informed conjecture. The location of the chainplates was 

documented by an archaeologist during a visit to the site in the submarine NR-1. Photographic 

images were the primary source of rigging element dimensions and their placement. Three 

photographs of representative examples of contemporary fore-and-aft rigged schooners were 

used during the rigging reconstruction process. They included Polly, a two-masted schooner 

built in Amesbury, Pennsylvania in 1805, Hope, a two-masted schooner built in Bideford, 

England, in 1849, and an aging unidentified schooner photographed in Havana in 1860 (Figures 

D2, D3 and D4). Dimensions were scaled off of the photographs by basing the scale on the 

height of a person at six feet. 

88 
Figure D2. The gaff rigged schooner Polly. Built in 1805 in Amesbury, Pennsylvania, and later 

rebuilt in 1861 (From MacGregor 1982: 55). 

89 
Figure D3. The two-masted fore-and-aft rigged merchant schooner Hope. The vessel is 

shown with double topsails and no studding sail (From MacGregor 1997: 67). 

90 
Figure D4. An aging unidentified two-masted topsail schooner. The vessel, showing a top gallant 

sail, was photographed in the Havana harbor in 1860 (From MacGregor 1997: 33). 

91 
Figure D5. Original builder’s plans for the topsail schooner Elizabeth Austen (After Underhill 

1952 Plate 18). 

The photographs were compared to several building plans of merchant schooners, 

including Hedderwick’s Glasgow, an original builder’s plan of the schooner Elizabeth Austen, 

and a lines drawing of the HMS Subtle, an American-built, Danish-owned schooner captured by 

the British in 1808 and pressed into naval service as an armed schooner (Figures D5 and D6). 

Subtle was lost in a violent squall while pursuing an American privateer in the West Indies in 

1812. Chapelle, who drew the lines and recorded a table of Subtle’s mast and spar dimensions, 

failed to cite his original sources (Chapelle 1935: 234). 

92 
Figure D6. Lines of HMS Subtle, lost in a violent squall while pursuing an American privateer in 

the West Indies in 1812 (From Chapelle 1935, 232). 

93 
Figure D7. Hypothetical Mica shipwreck rigging reconstruction (Drawing by Toby Jones).

All six representations of nineteenth-century merchant schooners were analyzed and 

averaged to create a plausible rigging reconstruction to place on Hedderwick’s Glasgow hull 

(Figure D7). Therefore, the Mica shipwreck rigging reconstruction did not exactly resemble any 

single source, but rather, was a sum of its parts, a hypothetical hybrid two-masted fore-and-aft 

rigged schooner of the type that would have been common along the coast and in the ports of the 

early American republic. 

The following section includes specific details relating to the reconstruction of the vessel. 

The hull selection has already been discussed above, so the next logical areas to explore were the 

dimensions of the vessel’s masts and spars, followed by the standing and running rigging, and 

concluding with the sail plan and sailing performance considerations. 

94 
MASTS 

The Mica shipwreck rigging reconstruction was a two-masted fore-and-aft rigged 

merchant schooner, and by definition, it had a foremast and a mainmast. Both masts had 

topmasts, but only the foremast carried a topsail. The diameter, dimensions and placement of the 

masts was determined by averaging the dimensions visible in the photographs and builder’s 

plans. The foremast was an average of 19.7 meters (54 feet) in height, when measured from the 

keelson, while the mainmast measured 25.9 meters (71 feet) in height, also measured from the 

keelson. The fore topmast averaged 16.8 meters (46 feet) in length, while the main topmast was 

13.0 meters (38 feet) in length. The diameter of both the fore topmast and main topmast was 

calculated to be 0.4 meters (1 foot), with both tapering upward to a minimum of 0.17 meters 

(0.58 feet) in diameter. 

The doubling was averaged, with the foremast having 2.1 meters (7 feet) of it, while the 

mainmast had 2.7 meters (9 feet). The foremast diameter was an average of 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) 

at the deck, while the mainmast has a diameter at the deck of 0.51 meters (1.7 feet). Chapelle 

listed the Subtle as having a mainmast diameter of 0.44 meters (1.45 feet) at the deck, while the 

foremast had a diameter of 0.45 meters (1.48 feet) at the deck (Chapelle 1935: 234). The 

similarity of the mast diameters is reflected in the nearly identical diameter of both lower masts 

on the Mica reconstruction. The foremast entered the deck 4.9 meters (16 feet) abaft of the stem, 

while the main mast entering 13.1 meters (43 feet) abaft of the stem. The forward set of 

chainplates seen on the Mica shipwreck were located 5 meters (16.4 feet) abaft of the stem. The 

forward most chainplate would have been even with or slightly forward of the front face of the 

foremast. 

The rake of the masts was established by averaging the rake of Glasgow, Polly, Hope, 

Elizabeth Austen and Subtle. The foremast averaged five degrees of aft rake, while the mainmast 

had 10 degrees. The average rakes were incorporated in the drawing. The mast taper for the 

main, fore, and topmasts were determined by measuring the widths of the masts at the deck, 

below the cap, above the cap and below the signal pole or mast head on all the representations 

where the diameter was visible. The mast caps, trestle trees, and cross trees were scaled off 

Hedderwick’s Glasgow building plan (MacGregor 1997: 39). 

The bowsprit and jib boom measurements were arrived at in a similar fashion. The 

bowsprit had a diameter of 0.56 meters (1.83 feet), while the jib boom had a diameter of 0.25 

meters (0.83 feet). The angle or steeve of the bowsprit projection was averaged from several 

photographs and drawings, and determined to be 18 degrees above the horizontal plane. The 

bowsprit protruded an average of 6.1 meters (20 feet) from the stem, while the jib boom had an 

overall length of 8.53 meters (28 feet). The doubling was estimated to be 1.21 meters (4.0 feet). 

The dolphin striker, which extended at a right angle from the jib boom on five out of the six 

representations (the Glasgow’s bowsprit being the exception, pointed straight down) was 

calculated to be 2.6 meters (8.5 feet) long, with a hanging knee or carrier brace placed on the 

forward face. 

95 
SPARS 

The fore-and-aft rigged Mica shipwreck reconstruction carried a large square sail on the 

foremast, which provided additional sail area to propel the sleek hypothetical vessel even faster. 

The lower yard was slung from the foremast, while the fore topsail yard was slung from the fore 

topmast. The fore topsail was thus anchored to the lower foremast, a practical solution that 

directed the majority of the strain from the large sail into the thicker lower mast. The dimensions 

and placement of the yards was determined in the same way as that of the masts discussed above. 

The dimensions were scaled off of the photographs and builder’s plans, calculated and then 

averaged. The lower yard was an average of 9.8 meters (32 feet) in length, while the topsail yard 

was 7.3 meters (24 feet) in length. The top edge of the foremast yard was slung just below the 

doubling, 11.0 meters (36 feet) above the deck. The top edge of the fore topsail yard was slung 

18.6 meters (61 feet) above the deck. The lower yard had a maximum diameter of 0.25 meters 

(0.83 feet), while the upper yard had a maximum diameter of 0.20 meters (0.7 feet). Both yards 

had an even taper towards the yardarms, and were attached to the mast with rope lashings and 

cleats. Both of the yards were controlled by braces, which are discussed below. 

The primary sail on the foremast was the large fore-and-aft gaff sail. The boom was 9.8 

meters (32 feet) in length, from the tip of the boom to the tip of the jaws. The diameter of the 

boom was 0.25 meters (0.83 feet), just abaft of the throat. The fore boom has an angle of 80 

degrees, if the mast was set horizontal at zero degrees. The fore gaff was an average of 7.3 

meters (24 feet) in length from tip to jaw, and had a diameter of 0.25 meters (0.83 feet) abaft the 

throat. The foresail gaff came off the foremast at an angle of 57 degrees. The center of the boom 

was located 2.4 meters (8 feet) above the deck, while the foresail gaff was located 9.1 meters (30 

feet) above the deck. 

The main mast carried a single large fore-and-aft sail. The boom measured 12.2 meters 

(40 feet) in length, with a diameter of 0.30 meters (1 foot) abaft the throat. The boom left the 

mast at an angle of 75 degrees, if the mast was set horizontal at zero degrees. The top of the main 

boom was set 2.7 meters (9.0 feet) above the deck. The top of the main gaff was set 13.7 meters 

(45 feet) above the deck, at an angle of 53 degrees. It had a length of 7.9 meters (26 feet) and a 

maximum diameter of 0.25 meters (0.83 feet). 

STANDING RIGGING 

The standing rigging of the Mica ship reconstruction was relatively simple. It consisted of 

forestays, shrouds, backstays, a bobstay and a martingale stay. Analyzing and comparing the 

photographs of contemporary vessels helped determine the correct placement of the rigging. The 

builder’s plans of similar vessels and a little common sense regarding ship rigging were also 

employed. 

The dolphin striker provided a fulcrum point that allowed the martingale to pull down on 

the jib boom with enough force to counteract the strong upward pull of the foremast forestays. 

The bobstay, as well as the gammoning of the bowsprit to the knee of the head provided 

additional support to the bowsprit and jib boom. The jib boom was attached to the bowsprit 

where it ran through the bowsprit cap, and was supported by the jib boom saddle that was abaft 

the cap, as well as a clamp abaft the chock (Figure D8). 

96 
Figure D8. Selected bow area nomenclature (Drawing by Toby Jones). 

There were four forestays on the foremast. The fore topmast forestay was anchored to the 

fore topmast and ran through a block attached near the end of the jib boom. That line ran aft 

along the bowsprit before entering the hull, where it was secured to a set of deadeyes. The next 

lower stay, the outer jib stay, was anchored to the jib boom and ran up and aft, where it ran 

through a block fastened to the forward edge of the foremast cap. That line ran down to a cleat 

on the forward edge of the foremast, where it was tied off. The next lower stay, the inner jib stay, 

ran in the same direction, through a block on the forward crosstree on the foremast. That stay 

was anchored abaft the bowsprit cap. 

The foremast forestay was attached to the foremast immediately above the crosstrees and 

trestletrees. That stay ran forward and down, and was anchored to a set of deadeyes attached to 

the top of the stem. The forestays for the mainmast and main topmast ran forward to the 

foremast. The forestay on the main topmast ran forward and down to a set of deadeyes attached 

to the after edge of the foremast cap. The mainmast forestay ran forward and down to a set of 

deadeyes attached to the after crosstree on the foremast. 

97 
In the reconstruction, four shrouds were placed on each side of the foremast, and two 

shrouds on each side of the fore topmast (Figure D9). The remains of two sets of deadeyes and 

chainplates were seen in both the starboard bow quarter and port stern quarter of the Mica wreck. 

This was taken as a minimum number, with the likelihood that additional elements were missing 

or buried under the sediment inside the wreck. A comparison of the contemporary photographs 

and Hedderwick’s treatise show the vessels rigged with 3-4 chainplates and deadeyes per side on 

the fore and main masts. The reconstructed mainmast had three shrouds on either side of the 

mast. Both sets of lower shrouds looped around the lower masts and were spliced to themselves, 

just above the crosstrees and trestletrees. According to Biddlecombe, the shrouds were 0.13 

meters (0.44 feet) in circumference (Biddlecombe 1990: 150). All the shrouds ran from the mast 

down to deadeyes attached to chainwales. The deadeyes were 0.25 meters (0.83 feet) in diameter, 

which was half of the diameter of the mast which they were serving, a rule cited by R.C. 

Anderson (Anderson 1982: 93). 

Figure D9. Lower forward rigging nomenclature (Drawing by Toby Jones). 

98 
The fore topmast was supported by two shrouds on either side, which were attached to 

deadeyes that were anchored through the outer ends of the crosstrees. According to 

Biddlecombe, a merchant schooner of between 100 and 200 tons would have topmast shrouds 

that were 0.07 meters (0.23 feet) in circumference (Biddlecombe 1990: 150). 

The deadeyes for each shroud were spaced 1.75 meters (5.75 feet) apart. The dimensions 

were taken from Hedderwick’s Glasgow building plan, because the deadeyes were clearly 

depicted. This amount of spacing would vary depending upon the lengths of the shrouds, which 

were probably only consistent to a general degree. Ratlines were placed on the foremast and 

mainmast shrouds, with a vertical spacing of 0.36 meters (1.2 feet). The ratlines began just above 

the pine sheer batten, which prevented the deadeyes from twisting. It should be noted that the 

ratlines would probably have been tauter in reality than were depicted in the Mica shipwreck 

rigging reconstruction drawing. 

The main boom was secured downward with a main sheet and tackle to an iron staple or 

‘sheet horse’ in the deck. Two backstays were placed on each side of the fore topmast and main 

topmast and ran down and aft to the aft part of the chainwales, where they were attached to 

deadeyes. The deadeyes were identical to those employed by the lower masts (Figure D10). 

Figure D10. Lower aft rigging nomenclature (Drawing by Toby Jones). 

99 
The mainmast had three forestays running forward to the foremast. Two of the mainmast 

forestays ran from near the top of the main topmast forward, and attached near the top and 

bottom of the fore topmast. The third forestay ran from the forward edge of the mainmast cap 

forward to a deadeye anchored immediately beneath the aft crosstree on the foremast. 

A note on the shroud placement is in order. The forward most shroud on both the 

foremast and mainmast was placed slightly forward of the plane of the mast itself. This feature 

only appeared clearly on Hedderwick’s Glasgow. The other schooner representations showed the 

forward-most shroud on each mast being even with the forward edge of the mast. To be 

consistent with the averaging of features that form the foundation of this reconstruction, the 

shrouds should have been drawn as represented in the photographs, not the builder’s plan. 

RUNNING RIGGING 

The running rigging controlled the sail and spar adjustment, and, on the Mica shipwreck 

rigging reconstruction, consisted of topping lifts, peak and throat halyards, vangs and braces. 

Much of the rigging information was derived from Hedderwick’s building plan, although all the 

images were utilized in some fashion. The topping lifts were clearly represented in several of the 

photographs, and their attachment points and dimensions were scaled, averaged and applied to 

the reconstruction. The circumference of the topping lifts, according to Biddlecombe’s rigging 

table for schooners between 120 and 130 tons, was 0.08 meters (0.25 feet) (Biddlecombe 1990: 

151). Both the fore boom and main boom were depicted as having topping lifts. However, 

evidence of this was not visible in the photographs. It was assumed that this extra support on the 

fore boom would be necessary given the length of the boom and the total sail area. If it were not 

deemed necessary by the ship operator, it could have been removed. However, while installed, it 

would not detract from the sailing ability of the vessel, and would add an extra measure of 

support to the fore boom element. 

The peak and throat halyards for the fore and main gaffs were visible on Glasgow, Polly, 

and Hope. All of the halyards had similar placement and size. The Glasgow and the Hope had 

three blocks on the mast, while the Polly only showed two. Given the large size of the gaffs on 

the Mica reconstruction, three halyard blocks were chosen to support the gaff on both the fore 

and main masts. The lines running through these blocks were 0.08 meters (0.25 feet) in 

circumference on both gaff sails (Figure D11) (Biddlecombe 1990: 149). 

100 
Figure D11. Upper forward rigging nomenclature (Drawing by Toby Jones). 

Vangs were visible on the Glasgow, Hope, Polly, and on an unidentified schooner 

moored in Havana. The vangs were used for manipulating the gaff towards the port or starboard. 

All of the images showed the vangs attached near the after end of the gaff on both the main gaff 

and fore gaff. The vangs hung slack and trail forward and down, where they are tied off to a cleat 

on the forward face of their respective masts. Two signal halyards were placed aft of the 

mainmast, and ran from the gunwale to the head of the main topmast (Figure D12). 

101 
Figure D12. Upper aft rigging nomenclature (Drawing by Toby Jones). 

There were four braces shown on the Mica shipwreck rigging reconstruction. They all 

trailed aft from the fore topsail yard and the foresail yard. The braces for each yard ran through a 

double block attached to the forward edge of the mainmast cap. From there, the lines ran down to 

cleats on the forward edge of the mainmast. Biddlecombe stated that all of the braces on a 

merchant schooner of this size were 0.04 meters (0.15 feet) in circumference (Biddlecombe 

1990: 149). 

SAILS 

There were seven sails that the reconstructed Mica wreck vessel could have set. The 

flying jib stretched along the fore topmast stay, between the fore topmast and the jib boom. 

Another jib sail was set along the outer jib stay, running from the forward edge of the foremast 

cap toward the center of the jib boom. The third jib sail was set on the inner jib stay, and ran 

from the forward edge of the forward crosstree toward the aft edge of the bowsprit mast cap. A 

staysail was set on the foremast forestay, running from the foremast, immediately above the 

crosstrees and trestletrees, to the top of the stem. 

The foremast carried a fore-and-aft sail, and a large square sail hung from a fore topmast 

yard and a larger yard placed just below the doubling on the foremast. The mainmast carried a 

large fore-and-aft sail. Other sails could have plausibly been added to the Mica shipwreck vessel 

reconstruction plan. These included a triangular gaff topsail on the main topmast, and possibly a 

102 
double topsail or a topsail and topgallant sail on the fore topmast. Both were commonly seen on 

merchant schooners during the first half of the nineteenth century. 

CONCLUSION 

The reconstruction of the Mica shipwreck’s rig produced a generalized mast, rigging, and 

sail plan for an early nineteenth-century two-masted merchant schooner. Such schooners were 

ubiquitous along the coasts of North America, and were probably rigged with a multitude of 

variations. It is important to remember that there were no hard and fast laws concerning the way 

to rig a ship. Functional considerations, practicality and common sense were the guiding 

principles when building a sailing rig. Economy and safety were continually at odds, with ship 

operators trying to sail with a minimum crew and maximum amount of cargo. The operators of 

the fast-sailing metallic-sheathed Mica vessel likely analyzed that balance, and were continually 

looking for ways to improve economic efficiency. 

103 
105 

10:0. APPENDIX 5: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SHIP ENROLLMENT RECORDS FOR 

NEW ORLEANS by Toby Jones 

 Information provided in the table below is the result of a research carried out by Toby 

Jones. Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana (prepared by the Survey of 

Federal Archives in Louisiana Division of Community Service Programs Work Projects 

Administration) is the source of the information (see bibliography for detailed reference data). 

Volumes I (1804-1820) and II (1831-1840) - to a lesser extent, due to the time frame being 

researched for the Mica Shipwreck - were reviewed. The goal of the research was to identify the 

ships of similar tonnage and size to the Mica Shipwreck, and investigate the fate of these vessels. 

Such research avenues could ultimately determine the identification of the Mica Shipwreck, its 

name, date of loss and possibly cargo. The number of ships that were in the approximate size 

range of the Mica vessel clearly illustrates that this size of vessels was popular in the period, and 

the sail arrangement chosen for Mica was also in widespread use. 

 However, we choose to include the results of this research in this report, with the hope 

that the organization of the data presented here might help other researchers in the future. 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1805 Actress brig New Orleans Chatham CN 176 29-95 76' 23' 3.5" 11' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

ShearmanWillet, Ba

na Adventure brig New Orleans na 86 3-95 61' 8" 19' 2" 6' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Carraby, Faurie, Lugeol, SMarc, Mayrone, Baligent 

1808 Agent brig 

Alexandria VA Warren RI 152 71' 3" 22' 4" 11' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, male figurehead 

DavidsonAlford, McLean, Camp, 

1817 Alabama brig Baltimore MD

Talbot Co. MD 229 45-95 84' 24' 6" 12' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, 

billethead, round 

tuck Thompso

106

1815 Alert sloop Boston MA 

Kennebunk MA 55 52-95 59' 6" 18' 7" 5' 10.5"

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Smith, M

1810 Alexandrew brig New Orleans Absecomb NJ 163 61-95 70' 8" 24' 9" 11' 3.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead Cox, Bart

na Alexandrine brig New Orleans na 100 89-95 70' 2" 20' 8" 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, round stern, billethead DuBourg 

1805 Alfred brig New Orleans Brooklyn NY 260 32-95 82' 24' 6" 15' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, 

billethead, round 

tuck Dyson 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

na Aligator brig New Orleans na 212 18-95 81' 10" 24' 6" 12' 3" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Girod 

1804 Alleghany schooner Pittsburg PA Pittsburg PA 104 55-95 72' 9" 20' 9' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Barber, LSr., Lord 

1818 Almy brig Tiverton RI 

Berkely, Bristol Co. MA 91 17-95 63' 10" 20' 4" 8' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern P. Corey 

1805 Amazon brig New Orleans Rochester MA 214 9-95 82' 6" 24' 6" 12' 3" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead Winter, C

107 

1817 Amelia sloop New Orleans Lyme CN 70 70-95 60' 20' 7' 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, woman head Forstall 

1812 

American Hero schooner Wareham MA Hallowell MA 128 28-95 73' 23' 8' 11.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Gibbs, WPerry, S. Perry, C. Perry, R. Clay, D. CS. Clay, Glidden 

na 

Amiable Lucy brig New Orleans na 176 69-95 80' 8" 24' 2" 10' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, woman figurehead Reynes 
108

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1807 Ann brig New Orleans Connecticut 82 23-95 66' 20' 4" 7' 3-4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Willet 

1809 Ann schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 142 82-95 78' 6" 23' 1" 9' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Michel, Sagory 

1814 Ann schooner Cohasset MA Cohasset MA 91 18-95 67' 3" 19' 9" 7' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

N. TowerTower, Whittingt

1815 Ann schooner 

Portsmouth NH 

Portsmouth NH 86 38-95 66.8' 17.6' 8.4' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

Clark, Odiorne 

1804 Ann Jane brig 

Philadelphia PA 

Elizabethtown PA 186 2-95 78' 1" 23' 6" 11' 9" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

R. McFarJ. McFarl

1819 Ann Jane sloop Petit Coquilles New York NY 50 87-95 59' 20' 4" 12' 1" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, 

billethead, round 

tuck 

Bennet, Morte, Br

1811 Ardent brig 

Marblehead MA Duxbury MA 125 21-95 71' 5" 21' 7" 9' 5.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead Hooper 

1812 Argo brig New Orleans 

Great Egg Harbor NJ 179 50-95 76' 24.1' 11.5' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

McNair, Gardiner, Torrey, Center, Linton, Wilkins 
109

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

na Arkansas brig New Orleans na 136 75-95 66' 7" 19' 9" 12' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, man figurehead 

Reynes, Esteva, LeGrave, Elmes 

1818 Arringdon schooner Gardiner MA Hallowell MA 110 70' 21' 6" 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Perry Jr., Lowell, CHogdon 

1806 Astrea brig New Orleans Haverhill MA 115 65' 6" 19' 6" 10' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Chew 

1816 Atalanta brig Freetown MA Freetown MA 184 69' 8" 23' 1" 11' 6.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Hathaway 

1803 Atlas schooner New Orleans Groton CN 70 58-95 58' 18' 7" 7' 8.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, figurehead

Miller, Holand, L

1806 Aurora brig New Orleans 

King and Queen Co. VA 204 54-95 78' 24' 12' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, billethead 

AmelungHarrod, GOgden, POgden 

1815 Aurora brig New York NY Saybrook CN 197 94-95 82' 24' 3" 11' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, woman head McKinne 

na Barilla brig New Orleans na 151 10-95 68' 21' 9" 12' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Dent, Gardiner, Center, Torrey, Linton, Wilkins 
110

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1799 Beaver schooner 

Philadelphia PA 

North Yarmouth MA 88 86-95 78' 7" 26' 9" 7' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

SimontonScott 

1796 Bee schooner Norfolk VA 

Newburyport MA 75 51-95 66' 9" 20' 1" 6' 6.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Hipkins 

1804 Bellisarius brig New Orleans 

Kennebunk MA 199 50-95 79' 10" 24' 1" 12' .5" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern Junior 

na Bellona brig New Orleans na 113 4-95 68' 19' 2" 9' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, square tuck, woman head Brooks 

1811 Belvidere brig Beverly MA 

Barnstable MA 143 94-95 74' 9" 21' 7" 6' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Lamson, 

1799 Betsey brig 

Portsmouth NH Dover NH 133 22-95 68.5' 21.3' 10.65' 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern Smith, Ha

1805 Betsey schooner Pittsburg PA Pittsburg PA 115 35-95 61' 20' 1" 9' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, square tuck Bebee, O

1807 Betsey schooner Fairhaven PA Saco MA 83 14-95 65' 6.5" 21' 1" 7' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, short quarter deck 

L. Wood, Tripp, WWood, Fi

1807 Betsey schooner 

Barnstable MA 

Barnstable MA 94 40-95 67' 10" 19' 11" 

8' 10.25" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Crowell, Baker, J. Chipman, Chipman (both heirU. Baker, Chase 
111

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1803 Betsy schooner Wareham MA Scituate MA 74 45-95 65' 3.5" 29' 5" 6' 6.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

A. Gibbs, Burgess, Burgess, Swift, C. Gibbs, Fearing 

1805 

Black Walnut brig 

East Haddam CN Pittsburg PA 160 25-95 78' 4" 23' 10' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Lord Jr., Barber 

1817 

Bright Phoebus schooner 

Hempstead NY 

Hempstead NY 46 2-95 59' 6" 18' 9" 4' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Anthony, Chandler 

1815 Brisk schooner New Orleans Baltimore MD 110 34-95 77' 6" 19' 6" 8' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Lanusse, Millaudon 

1816 Brunswick sloop 

New Brunswick NJ

New Bedford MA 76 84-95 65' 2" 24' 3" 6' 7" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, billethead 

Graw, Vandyke, Flagg, Bo

1810 Brutus schooner New Orleans 

Accomack Co. VA 60 59-95 57' 17' 8" 7' 1 deck, 2 masts 

DeBon, Nicholson 

1807 Buckskin schooner New Orleans 

Annapolis MD 56 60' 18' 6' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Landreu, Folger, Cornell, Morin 
112

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1810 Calypso brig New Orleans 

New London CN 144 11-95 

73' 10.5" 22' 9" 10' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Gilley, WPryor, WrNicholls, Morse, Walden, PJr., Burto

1796 Camalus brig New York NY Bath MA 168 83-95 72' 7" 23.4' 11.7' 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Kennedy, Delaplain

1814 Caroline schooner New Orleans 

Talbot Co. MD 56 55-95 58' 6" 17' 6" 6' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Tio, ZachNelson 

1809 Caroline brig Providence RI Somerset MA 106 58-95 68' 1" 21' 1" 8' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Ives, Brow

1806 Catherine schooner Boston MA 

White Oak River NC 76 49-95 59' 7" 18' 10" 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, fiddlehead

HolbrookKingsbur

1815 Catherine schooner New York NY

Stonington CN 161 24-95 77' 7" 22' 6" 10' 7.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, square tuck, figurehead

C. DavenR. DavenE. DavenpA. ArculaP. ArculaLathem 

1805 Caty Ann schooner New Orleans Lyme CN 133 73-95 70' 10" 21' 2" 10' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, scroll head Elmes 

na Celeste schooner New Orleans na 131 28-95 68' 6" 20' 6" 10' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, carved scroll head West 
113

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1806 Centurion schooner New Orleans Saybrook CN 133 77-95 80' 9" 20' 9' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

J. Fortier, Fortier, Gracie, HAmelungAmelungFortier SrFortier JrSoubercaCornell 

1814 Ceylon schooner New Orleans Saybrook CN 210 76' 9" 23' 8" 13' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, fiddlehead

Center, Gardiner, Odie, DenMcMasteBassett, Bogart, McLanahWalden 

1818 Champlin schooner New Orleans New York NY 67 52-95 58' 4" 18' 7' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern West 

1814 Chance schooner New Orleans 

Manchester MA 104 6-95 70' 19' 10" 8' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Junca, Ar

na Charles brig New York NY na 163 87-95 69' 6" 22' 2" 12' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Wibray, McCrea, Slidell Jr. 

1815 Charles schooner Salem MA 

Westbrook MA 109 82-95 68' 4" 21' 5.5" 8' 9.25" 1 deck, 2 masts Carrico, D

1813 

Charles Stewart schooner New Orleans 

Charlestown MA 65 82-95 61' 7" 17' 6" 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Stanley 
114

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1806 Charlotte schooner New Orleans 

Norfolk Co. VA 100 14-95 70' 6" 20' 4" 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

CallenderAmory, JFortier, MFortier 

1811 

Clarissa Ann brig 

Portsmouth NH 

Bowdoinham MA 197 34-95 80' 10" 23' 9.5" 

11' 10.7" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Holmes, Forstall, Garland 

1807 Commerce brig Providence RI Dighton MA 121 72' 2" 20' 7" 9' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Franklin, Bowen JrWaterman 

1816 

Commodore Barney schooner Mobile AL 

Lewistown DE 71 24-95 63.10' 20.50' 6.50' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Wheeler, Heartt 

1812 

Commodore Hull brig Boston MA 

Charlestown MA 139 55-95 75' 21' 9" 9' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

W. Wyer, WyerW. Sweet, S. Sweet 

1816 

Commodore Patterson sloop New Orleans Baltimore MD 83 15-95 64' 6" 19' 7' 10" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, round tuck 

Bennet, Shields, 

1796 Concord brig New Orleans Newport RI 87 55-95 64' 20' 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

Paraire, Hugnet 

1804 Conquest schooner Pittsburg PA Pittsburg PA 112 50-95 68' 20' 4" 9' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern O'Hara, B
115

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1802 Constitution schooner New York NY

Kinderhook NY 123 35-95 71' 4" 22' 3" 9' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Walden, White 

1814 Criterion schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 76 69-95 67' 9" 20' 6" 6' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Lamotte, Prados, Segura 

1819 Cygnet schooner Hallowell MA Pittston MA 135 48-95 72' 10" 22' 6" 9' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Kimball, Agray, Emerson 

1806 Dart brig New Orleans Salisbury MA 172 49-95 76' 2" 22' 11" 11' 5.5"

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead 

Duncan, Jackson, GTaylor 

1819 Dart schooner New Orleans Plymouth MA 64 93-95 61' 17' 7' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Fiske, Richardso

1818 David sloop New York NY Saybrook CN 97 56-95 68' 10" 21' 8" 7' 9" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Storer, Gr

na Diana schooner New Orleans na 61 73-95 55' 4" 17' 2" 7' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Peebles, Rivarde 

1807 Dolly brig New Orleans 

New Bedford MA 211 25-95 82' 24' 5" 12' 2.5"

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern 

W. ThornThorn, HendersoKenner 

na Dolores schooner New Orleans na 123 72-95 75' 8" 21' 8' 10.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Patterson

1790 Dolphin schooner 

Philadelphia PA 

Great Egg Harbor NJ 62 81-95 57' 8" 18' 3" 7' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Blake 
116

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1804 Dove schooner 

Portsmouth NH Kittery MA 62 76-95 57.2' 17.2' 7.4' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

J. GoodriW. Goodr

1811 Dread sloop Hudson NY Newburgh NY 95 92-95 68' 8" 23' 3" 7' 2" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, round tuck 

GoodwinInslee, GrosvenoBarker 

1817 Earl sloop Rochester MA Rochester MA 95 36-95 

65' 8.25" 19' 6.5" 8' 5.25"

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern 

Cushing, Meigs, Church, ECannon, Goodspee

1815 Edward brig New Orleans Concord DE 140 88-95 81' 23' 8' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Carleton, Mayhew 

1802 Eliza schooner 

Portsmouth NH 

New Bedford MA 74 3-95 60' 6" 19' 9" 7' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Merrill 

1814 Eliza schooner New Orleans Pittsburg PA 48 1-95 60?? 16' 6" 3' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Bathrick, Gridley, Gifford, Armitage 

1801 

Eliza and Sarah brig New Orleans 

Philadelphia PA 107 11-95 64' 6" 21' 9' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, full built Lester, M

1803 Eliza Tice schooner 

Philadelphia PA 

Mantua Cr. Glouchester Co. NJ 98 61-95 62' 2" 21' 6" 8' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead Tice 
117

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

na 

Eliza Vickery schooner New Orleans na 89 45-95 62' 20' 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead, round tuck 

McCarty, Vickery 

na Emilie brig Baltimore MD na 116 48-95 67' 21' 6" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, billethead Hathaway 

1805 Enterprize schooner Hampden MA Hampden MA 99 46-95 71' 8" 21' 3" 7' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

R. NewcoSr., R. Newcomb Walter 

1806 Exchange brig Baltimore MD Pittsburg PA 114 7-95 66' 8" 19' 2" 10' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Moore 

na 

Fair American brig New Orleans na 100 36-95 64' 3" 19' 9' 6" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead, round tuck 

Carrick, Morgan, Hinard, Dusser 

1806 Fame brig Sandwich MA Sandwich MA 129 67-95 76' 21' 6" 9' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Bodfish, Hamblin, Handy, WPerry, S. Perry, MoJ. PhinneyPerry, E, Phinney 

1815 

Farmers Fancy schooner Richmond VA Cabbin Pt. VA 147 48-95 75' 8" 24' 1" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round tuck, billethead 

PleasantsRalston 
118

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1813 Favorite schooner 

Worchester Co. MD 

Glastonbury CN 102 79-95 68' 21' 9" 8' 2" 1 deck, 2 masts 

Prideaur, Green 

1810 schooner New Orleans Duxbury MA 141 88-95 72' 10" 21' 10" 10' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead Gerard, C

Flora 

1813 Flying Fish schooner New Orleans 

Middletown CN 83 36-95 64' 20' 5" 7' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Baron, SeVives 

1811 Formax brig New Orleans Falmouth MA 173 76-95 78' 6" 23' 7.75" 10' .25"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead David 

1813 Fox sloop New Orleans 

Middletown CN 65 76-95 63' 19' 2" 6' 4" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Driscol 

1814 Frances brig New York NY Norfolk VA 169 76-95 77' 22' 2" 11' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Simond, Dixon 

1802 Free Love brig New Orleans 

Great Egg Harbor NJ 134 92-95 72' 22' 9" 9' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, woman figurehead 

Junior, ShepherdThompso

1816 Free Town schooner Boston MA Bristol MA 116 20-95 72' 11" 22' 8" 8' 2.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Guild, McClure, Hatch, Br

1798 Friendship brig New Orleans Berwick MA 132 1-95 69' 21.1' 10.55' 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

Ogden, WilliamsoDe Bloss 

1787 Gayoso brig New Orleans 

Philadelphia PA 92 32-95 59' 8" 19' 2" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern De Bon 
119

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1815 

General A. Jackson sloop New York NY New York NY 67 58' 4" 20' 10" 6' 8" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, man 

bust head, round 

tuck Gantz, Jr. 

1798 

George Clinton brig New Orleans New York NY 97 66' 2" 21' 8" 8' 1 deck, 2 masts Durrousse

1810 

George Washington brig New Orleans Bath MA 200 79-95 77' 6" 23' 4" 

12' 10.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

R. ShepheJ. ShepheTownes, Marshall, Wilson, Smith, SpPratt, WoJr. 

1818 Globe schooner Hingham MA Hingham MA 73 13-95 63' 2" 16' 11" 7' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, pink stern? 

C. SpraguSprague, Souther 

1811 

Gold Huntress sloop Providence RI Providence RI 111 22-95 68' 5" 21' 10" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

Currie, StOlneyWaGoodale 

1811 Good Hope schooner Charleston SC

Dorchester Co. MD 116 50-95 72' 22' 9" 8' 5" 1 deck, 2 masts Bruchet 

1807 Good Intent sloop Baltimore MD Rochester MA 77 58' 4" 19' 11" 8' 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern 

ClowdsbySpicer, Richards, Morton 
120

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1809 Greyhound schooner 

New Haven CN 

Killingsworth CN 87 67-95 61' 7" 20' 8' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, hound figurehead 

Seward, Kidston, Bishop 

1797 Hannah brig New Orleans Newbury MA 143 25-95 68' 22' 4" 7' 2" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern 

HendersoKenner, Trimble, WThomas, Thomas, Thomas, Harrod, GOgden, POgden. 

1798 Hannah schooner 

Manchester MA 

Amesbury MA 86 69-95 64' 1" 18' 2.5" 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Burges Jr

1801 Hannah schooner 

Newburyport MA Frankfort MA 111 71-95 65' 4" 20' 10' 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern Coffin 

1810 Hannibal brig 

New London CN Westerly RI 165 2-95 71' 7" 23' 9" 11' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Denison, Williams, Williams 

1816 Hector schooner Balize 

St. Mary's Co. MD 66 86-95 64' 8" 18' 2.5" 6' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, pilot boat built 

Pollock, SSere 

1812 Hector schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 149 44-95 82' 6" 23' 6" 8' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Cucullu 

1797 Helen schooner Charleston SC

Middletown CN 73 47-95 59' 9" 18' 10" 7' 10.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Stiles, Hobkirk 

1811 Henrico brig Boston MA 

Barnstable MA 205 2-95 83' 10" 24' 6" 11' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Snow, StoStephens 
121

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1804 Hercules brig New York NY Haddam CN 178 28-95 80' 22' 6" 10' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, man figurehead 

PerpignanLabouisse 

1807 Hero brig Boston MA Wiscasset MA 141 28-95 75' 20' 8.5" 10' 4.5"

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern Andrews, 

1814 Hero brig New Orleans 

Kennebunk MA 123 75-95 70' 10" 20' 11.75" 9' 7.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Giraudel, Lepretre, Amant, Casanova

1805 Hibernia brig New Orleans 

Alexandria DC 135 81-95 71' 22' 2.5" 10' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

DuplessesWest, Phi

1800 Hiram schooner Charleston SC Columbia MA 114 82-95 74' 1" 21' 11" 8' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Hunt 

1807 Holkar brig New York NY CN 192 34-95 81' 23' 7" 11' 9.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Morgan Jbach, PufWellman 

1802 Hope schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 51 42-95 59' 17' 3" 5' 10" 1 deck, 2 masts 

Belcour, Michel 

1805 Hornet schooner New Orleans 

Norfolk Co. VA 92 13-95 70' 18' 10" 7' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Merieult 

1815 Hornet schooner New Orleans 

Hartford Co. MD 58 30-95 60' 6" 18' 9" 6' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Harang 
122

Table E1. 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

1799 Hunter brig Baltimore MD

Stansborough NC 109 65-95 67' 6" 19' 3" 9' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Newman, Hyde, LeCrocker, Rogers, 

na Huntress schooner New York NY na 128 51-95 70' 8" 22' 9" 9' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, billethead Fowler 

na Imperial schooner 

Bayou St. John na 38 27-95 56' 10" 16' 3" 4' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Blanc 

na Indiana schooner New Orleans na 113 80' 4" 22' 4" 7' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round stern 

HambletoJoly 

1813 

James Lawrence schooner New Orleans Tappan NY 56 79-95 61' 1" 20' 5' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck, billethead 

Quere, LaPorte, Williams 

1818 

James Monroe schooner Sandwich MA Sandwich MA 116 31-95 70' 21' 6.5" 9' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

P. Gibbs, Swift, N. Gibbs 

1802 Jefferson brig New Orleans Freetown MA 111 53-95 66' 9" 21' 3" 9' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Wells, Richardso

1810 Joanna sloop New Orleans Swansey MA 65 30-95 58' 3" 18' 5" 7' 2" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

FrancolinAndrich 

1801 John brig 

Alexandria DC 

Mathews Co. VA 121 2-95 75' 1" 22' 8" 8' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Taylor 

1808 John brig 

Philadelphia PA Belfast MA 144 36-95 79' 3" 23' 1" 9' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Stiles Sr. 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1808 John schooner New Orleans Newbern NC 87 41-95 60' 20' 6" 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Michel 

1815 John Hope schooner New Orleans Hampton VA 50 44-95 57' 17' 6" 6' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Cox, SomPollock, SMiller 

1810 

Joseph and Ruth brig 

Philadelphia PA Pittsburg PA 171 81' 7" 24' 9" 9' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

James, Updegraf

1815 Laura schooner New Orleans Baltimore MD 171 3-95 84' 6" 22' 9" 10' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round tuck Rivery 

1801 Liberty schooner New Orleans Burlington NJ 80 10-95 60' 19' 9" 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Miller 

1800 

Little Dromo schooner 

Glouchester MA Wheeling VA 97 61-95 77' 7" 18' 4" 7' 8" 

1 deck, 3 masts, sq. stern J. Beach 

123

1819 

Little William schooner Boston MA Bangor MA 121 24-95 72' 4" 22' 1" 8' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Ballard 

1782 Lively schooner Salem MA Salem MA 84 38-95 59' 17' 11" 9' 4" 1 deck, 2 masts 

Richard Smith, IssMcCoy, AlexandeClay Jr., James Co

1810 Louisiana brig Boston MA 

Dorchester MA 202 30-95 79' 6" 24' 4" 12' 2" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead Pratt 

1804 Louisiana schooner New Orleans Baltimore MD 74 87-95 70' 6" 22' 4" 5' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Bouecher
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1792 Lucy schooner Charleston SC Connecticut 82 64-95 61' 19' 8" 7' 11.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Torrey 

na 

MacDonough schooner 

Philadelphia PA na 74 59' 9" 19' 9" 7' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Adams, Hobart, Knight 

na Margaret brig New Orleans na 149 4-95 79' 6" 22' 7" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

GranperaPortas, CampaneDavid 

na Margaret brig New Orleans na 104 70-95 62' 8" 20' 5" 9' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead, round tuck 

Tio, St. MBrunie, 

1789 Mary brig New Orleans 

Mount Holly NJ 165 11-95 77' 6" 20' 7" 11' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Duncan, Jackson, M

124

1800 Mary brig New Orleans Providence RI 107 59-95 64' 8" 19' 8" 9' 10" 1 deck, 2 masts Ward na Mary brig New Orleans na 151 92-95 66' 23' 7" 11' 9.5"

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead, round tuck Morgan 

na Mary brig New Orleans na 145 32-95 69' 6" 22' 2" 11' 1" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, 

billethead, round 

tuck 

Dent, SpiRichards, Odie 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1804 Mary schooner New Orleans Pittsburg PA 36 31-95 61' 9" 13' 6.5" 4' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

VrignaudMontoro, MomenesBosque 

1812 Mary schooner New Orleans 

Alleghany Co. PA 205 59-95 78' 1" 22' 11" 13' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, square tuck Robins 

1815 

Mary and Eliza schooner Boston MA Bangor MA 82 53-95 65' 2" 19' 6.5" 7' 6.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Fisher, Bradford Eaton, C. Stone 

1811 Mary Ann brig 

New London CN 

New London CN 186 25-95 79' 22' 11" 11' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead 

J. DeshonDeshon 

125

1816 Mary Ann brig New Orleans Addison MA 175 52-95 80' 3" 23' 5" 10' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

P. OgdenOgden, Harrod 

1817 Mary Ann brig New Orleans 

Philadelphia PA 88 31-95 59.6' 21.35' 8.4' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, fiddlehead 

Bogart, McLanahCallaghan 

1804 Mary Ann schooner New Orleans 

Charlestown VA 99 5-95 63' 19' 11" 9' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Offley 

1808 Maryland brig New Orleans 

Dartmouth MA126 40-95 67' 21' 9" 10' 2.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

La Porte, Bissell 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1806 Mary Mason schooner New Orleans 

Mathews Co. VA 62 78-95 59' 9" 16' 9" 6' 10" 1 deck, 2 masts Berra 

1815 

Mediterranean schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 75 90-95 70' 6" 20' 6' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Assenso, Mantiga 

1800 Mentor brig New Orleans Freetown RI 112 61-95 66' 20' 8" 9' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Portas, Angelini, Smith 

1811 Merino schooner New Orleans Alma MA 78 62-95 54' 9" 20' 3" 8' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

WoodburMorse, H

1818 Milo sloop Fairhaven MA Fairhaven MA 77 66-95 59' 7" 19' 5.5" 7' 11" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern 

Delano, APease, T. Pease, Eldredge 

126

na Mississippi schooner New Orleans na 72 86-95 68' 3" 17' 8" 6' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round stern Landreu 

1817 Monroe brig Yarmouth MA

Portsmouth NH 114 65-95 70.1' 20.2' 9.3' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Hallet, Ba

1816 Morgiana schooner Duxbury MA Duxbury MA 120 5-95 73' 10" 21' 9" 8' 7.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

B. SampsW. SampJ. SampsoSampson, Allen 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1815 

Mount Vernon schooner New Orleans 

St. Mary Co. MD 65 47-95 65' 18' 2" 6' 4" 

Flush Deck, 2 Masts 

Hepburn, PleasantsSample, Dupuis, Baron, TuZacharie, Ogden 

1818 Mulberry schooner 

Annapolis MD 

West River MD 75 62-95 71' 19' 6" 6' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Tongue 

1816 Nancy sloop New York NY

Glastonbury CN 80 50-95 64' 1" 20' 9.5" 7' 1.5" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Grim, Sta

1815 New Packet brig Boston MA 

Barnstable MA 139 22-95 72' 2" 21' 7.5" 10' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Thatcher, Walter, Miller, Co

127

1815 Nonsuch schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 84 89-95 64' 6" 19' 6" 7' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Miller, Harang 

1810 Ohio schooner Beverly MA Ohio Co. VA 109 81-95 71' 3" 21' 2" 8' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round stern, square tuck Willett, R

1812 Orion schooner New Orleans 

Glastonbury CN 147 27-95 85' 22' 4" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Mitchell 

1795 Orlando brig New Orleans Newbury MA 128 26-95 71' 20' 10" 10' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Thorn 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1813 Orleans brig New York NY

Killingsworth CN 237 57-95 83' 6" 24' 3" 13' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Vail, Van Water, MWheeler, Wheeler, Stewart, RRussell, IRussell 

1804 

Orleans Packet schooner New Orleans Pittsburg PA 

(1?)43 37-95 76' 7" 13' 6" 4' 5.5" 

1 deck, 3 masts, sq. stern 

C. Evans, Harvey, WEvans, DuBufrenil, David, BuCarr, FowDaniel 

1818 Pearl brig Boston MA Bath MA 176 78' 10" 23' 8" 10' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Hall, ShepBaker, Sargent 

128

1813 Phebe Ann sloop New Orleans 

Goshen Creek NJ 55 18-95 57.9' 28.8' 5.55' 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern 

Clark, Cornwall 

na Polar Star schooner New Orleans na 38 41-95 56' 16' 4" 4' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Casteres 

1795 Polly brig New Orleans Connecticut 77 9-95 58' 18' 4" 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead 

Ogden, LePrince 

1791 President schooner Baltimore MD

Gloucester Co. VA 67 56' 17' 6" 8' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Taylor, HWhite Jr., Thomas 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1801 President schooner New York NY Surrey MA 98 69' 2" 22' 7' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Allen 

1804 President schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 70 78-95 64' 9" 19' 6" 6' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Miller, Fo

1810 Prompt brig New York NY

Middletown CN 164 15-95 78' 6" 24' 2" 10' 1" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, serpent head 

Riley, CaCowman, Murray, Ogden, 

1805 Ranger schooner New Orleans Baltimore MD 150 26-95 84' 22' 6" 9' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern United St

1818 Ranger schooner Hallowell MA Pittston MA 123 73' 21' 6.5" 9' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Agry 

129

1800 Rebecca schooner New Orleans 

Mathews Co. VA 120 44-95 68' 7" 20' 9.5" 9' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Barrie, LwLee 

na Rebecca schooner New Orleans na 64 69-95 62' 5" 18' 5" 6' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

West, Duplessis 

1816 Rebecca schooner Norfolk VA 

Talbot Co. MD 92 6-95 71' 21' 7' 

1 deck, 2 masts, round tuck Hall, Ree

1805 Recovery brig New Orleans 

Charleston VA 177 39-95 80' 8" 23' 10" 10' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, badges

TillinghasMarshall, Connell, McCluneyRodgers, Harford 

1802 Regulator schooner New Orleans Hampton VA 49 30-95 55' 8" 16' 4" 6' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

CallenderAmory 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1810 Resolution schooner Mobile AL Saybrook CN 75 65-95 59' 11" 19' 2" 7' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, scroll head Wilder, S

1817 Retrieve schooner Hallowell MA Hallowell MA 102 66' 7" 21' 4" 8' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Cox, HinkII, LovellGardner 

1812 Rising Sun schooner New Orleans Rochester MA 74 5-95 62' 4" 20' 7' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

DensmoreFernande

1801 Rover schooner New Orleans Massachusetts 80 61' 19' 7' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Cornell. CFoster 

1806 Rover schooner Charleston SC Connecticut 91 75-95 61' 4" 19' 5" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, billethead 

Burrows, Halsey, HLeeds, Chapman 

1819 St. Tamany schooner Covington Covington 44 35-95 55' 2" 16' 9" 5' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, round stern 

Gillmore, Jones 

130

1811 Sally schooner 

Philadelphia PA Steuben MA 77 45-95 65' 3" 20' 5.5" 6' 9.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Brethoff, Clifford 

1802 

Sally and Priscilla schooner Providence RI

Great Egg Harbor NJ 83 20-95 59' 7" 20' 10" 8' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Brown, Iv

1815 Sampson brig New York NY Westerly RI 196 10-95 78' 4" 24' 7" 11' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Britton JrHartshornDenison 

1804 Samuel schooner New Orleans Bertie Co. NC 52 2-95 57' 7" 17' 10" 5' 11" 1 deck, 2 masts Allen 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1815 Sarah Ann brig New Orleans 

Amesbury MA 137 11-95 67' 8" 21' 6.5" 11' 1.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead 

Cutter, Lumbard 

1809 Satellite schooner Charleston SC Chatham CN 93 43-95 56' 4" 20' 11" 7' 11" 1 deck, 2 masts Field 1805 Saturn schooner New Orleans 

Marshfield MA 107 1-95 66' 11" 20' 2.5" 9' 2.5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Vidal 

1819 Sea Flower schooner Hallowell MA Hallowell MA 77 62' 7" 19' 3.25" 7' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, billethead Smith 

1814 Solon schooner Boston MA 

North Yarmouth MA 93 29-95 69' 11" 20' 7" 7' 5" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Goddard 

131

1791 Sophia brig New Orleans Falmouth MA 188 63-95 64' 23' 8" 11' 10" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern 

T. BrooksWees, A. Brooks, Watts, Larionda, Holbet 

1814 

Speedy Peace brig New York NY New York NY 186 29-95 82' 6" 22' 8" 11' 4" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman bust head Halleck 

na 

Sperry Baker schooner New Orleans na 90 34-95 65' 3" 18' 8" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, man head, round tuck

Clavie, Barclay, Baker 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1806 Stephen brig New York NY Catskill NY 183 62-95 76' 4" 23' 9" na 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Jumel, Desobry 

1795 

Suckey and Polly schooner New Orleans Jerusalem VA 67 52-95 57' 18' 7' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Genois 

1810 Sumatra brig New York NY Saybrook CN 261 84-95 85' 24' 6" 14' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman figurehead Sturges 

1818 Surprize schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 52 73-95 62' 6" 18' 6" 5' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Hart 

1816 Susan sloop Petit Coquilles

Washington NC 70 19-95 65' 8" 19' 8" 6' 7" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Bennet, M

132

1798 Susanna brig 

Philadelphia PA 

Gloucester Co. NJ 92 54-95 61' 20' 8" 8' 9" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Reilly, Al

1790 Swanwick brig 

Philadelphia PA 

Philadelphia PA 230 62-95 82' 25' 8" 12' 10" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, man figurehead Adams 

na 

Thomas and Betsey schooner New Orleans na 38 91-95 62' 10" 14' 8" 4' 8" 

2 masts, sq. stern 

Hosking, Ogden 

1809 Thorn sloop New Orleans Fort Lee NJ 58 14-95 57' 4" 19' 6" 6' 2.5" 

1 deck, 1 mast, sq. stern Azarett 

1817 

Three Brothers schooner 

Monhegan MA 

Monhegan MA 79 75-95 65' 19' 6" 7' 2.25"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

H. TrefethH. TrefethJr. 

1812 

Three Sisters schooner 

Snow Hill MD 

Worcester Co. MD 73 55-95 65' 19' 5.75" 6' 8.75"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Davis, ScSmith 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

na Traveller brig New Orleans na 170 73-95 77' 9" 22' 5" 11' 3" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck 

Faure, RiFaurie 

1795 Trio brig New York NY New Jersey 165 85-95 76' 22' 8" 11' 1.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, man figurehead Hill, Berr

na Trio brig New Orleans na 152 15-95 73' 23' 4" 10' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, fiddlehead 

Martinez, Tricou, DUrquhart, Urquhart, Lagan 

1809 

Two Brothers schooner New Orleans na 55 94-95 60' 18' 6' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Barrie, AFerlat 

1800 Triumph schooner New Orleans 

Talbot Co. MD 56 72-95 61' 17' 6' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Cornell 

133

na Two Sisters schooner New Orleans na 119 44-95 67' 6" 20' 9" 9' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, round tuck Bosque 

1816 Two Sisters schooner Boston MA 

Westbrook MA 130 34-95 66' 21' 8' 6" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Lewis 

1802 Union schooner 

Dartmouth MA 

Barnstable MA 94 31-95 68' 20' 10" 7' 10.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Blackner, Thacher 

1805 Venus brig New Orleans 

Kent Island MD 173 71-95 76' 6" 21' 8" 12' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman head 

ShepherdRussel, JoMcNair 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1811 Venus schooner New York NY

Woodbridge NJ 111 32-95 66' 4" 18' 11" 10' 2" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Bailey 

1808 Victory schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester MD 53 21-95 58' 5" 18' 3" 5' 10" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Lanusse 

na Virginia schooner New Orleans na 43 58-95 60' 10" 16' 5" 5' 11" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Lapauze 

1809 Warren brig New Orleans Duxbury MA 184 32-95 78' 4" 23' 4" 11' 8" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, figurehead 

Mayhew, Odie, Gardiner, Center, Durand 

1812 Washington schooner Charleston SC Pittstown MA 149 85-95 75' 6" 23' 10.5" 9' 9" 1 deck, 2 masts 

McKinnePott, Lud

134

1801 

Welcome Home schooner New Orleans 

Dorchester Co. MD 71-74-95 63' 19' 6" 6' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Esteva 

1801 William brig 

Cambridge MA Hallowell MA 131 4-95 71' 6" 20' 6" 10' 3" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern Winthrop 

na William brig New Orleans na 127 23-95 63' 5" 21' 10" 10' 11" 

2 decks, 2 masts, sq. stern, man figurehead 

Garland, Harman, Winter, Murray 

1800 William schooner 

New Haven CN Connecticut 85 51-95 61' 3" 20' 8' 2" square stern Cooper 

1807 William schooner Newport RI Frankfort MA 127 56-95 75' 6" 22' 9" 8' 7" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Sayer, Rhodes, Cahoone 
Table E1. 

An Analysis of the Ship Enrollment Records for New Orleans (continued) 

Built Name 

Ship 

Type Home Port 

Construction 

place Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Description Owner

1816 

William and Emeline schooner Hallowell MA Hallowell MA 118 69' 10" 21' 11" 9' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Dorr, AldBourne 

1816 

William Gray schooner Bangor MA Bangor MA 157 10-95 77' 2" 23' 8.5" 10' 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

Snow, FisBradford Priest, FairbanksEaton, StuLombard, Collins 

1815 

William Penn brig Boston MA 

Barnstable MA 152 19-95 74' 7" 22' 0.5" 10' 8.5"

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Haven, H

1802 

William Wright schooner New Orleans 

Mathews Co. VA 79 79-95 67' 5" 18' 4" 7' 4" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern 

DocquemDeMoranD'Ariza, Lafonta, JTricou, PTricou jr. Miller 

1816 

Wiscasset and Boston Packet schooner Wiscasset MA

New Castle MA 115 21-95 77' 6" 22' 1" 7' 8" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern Erskine 

1811 Zephyr schooner Warren RI Warren RI 133 75' 6" 21' 11" 9' 3" 

1 deck, 2 masts, sq. stern, woman head 

J. Child, JChild jr., Gardner, 

135
REFERENCES CITED 

Anuskiewicz, R.J., D.A. Ball, and J.A. Irion. 2002. Discovery and Management of a Deepwater 

Historic Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual 

Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. Kenner, Louisiana. Pp. 77-83. 

Anderson, R.C. 1982. The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast: 1600-1720. 

Centreville: Cornell Maritime Press. (Original edition: 1927. Publisher not listed).

Andrews, K.R. 1978. The Spanish Caribbean. Trade and Plunder 1530-1630. New Haven: Yale 

University Press. 

Biddlecombe, G. 1990. Reprint. The Art of Rigging. New York: Edward W. Sweetman 

Company. Original edition, Salem, Massachusetts. Marine Research Society, publication 

no. 8. 1925. (Developed from The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship, by 

David Steel, London, 1794). 

Bingeman, J., J. Bethell, P. Goodwin, and A. Mack. 2000. Copper and Other Sheathing in the 

Royal Navy. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29(2):219-220. 

Bryant, W.R., J. Lugo, C. Cordova, and A. Salvador. 1991. Physiography and Bathymetry. In: A. 

Salvador ed. The Gulf of Mexico Basin. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 

America Inc. Pp. 13-31. 

Bulteel, J. 1672. A Letter written to the Publisher concerning a New Way, by an English 

manufacture to preserve the Hulls of Ships from the Worm, etc. better for sailing and 

more cheap and durable than any sheathing or graving hitherto used. Philosophical 

Transactions 7:6192-6194. 

Butts. I.R. 1980. The Merchant's and Mechanic's Assistant. In: Ronnberg, E.A.R.. The 

Coppering of 19th Century American Merchant Sailing Ships. Nautical Research Journal 

26(3):145. (Originally published by I.R. Butts and Company, Boston, 1856). 

Chapelle, H.I. 1935. The History of American Sailing Ships. New York: W.W. Norton 

Company. 

Church, A.C. 1938. Whale Ships and Whaling. New York: W.W. Norton. 

Cochrane, J.D., and F.J. Kelly. 1986. Low-frequency circulation on the Texas–Louisiana 

continental shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research 91:645-659. 

Collins, W. 1818. Patent Specification for an Improvement in Composition and Preservation for 

the Manufacturing Thereof into Sheets or Plates. The Repertory of Arts, Manufactures, 

and Agriculture 32. London: J. Wyatt. 

137 
Crothers, W. 1997. The American Built Clipper Ship: 1850-1856. Characteristics, Construction, 

Details. Camden: International Marine. 

Davis, D.D. 1984. Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. Gainesville: University Press of 

Florida. 

Díaz del Castillo, B. 1955. Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. (Original 

print: 1632). Mexico City: Porrua. 

Flick, C. 1973. Muntz Metal and Ship's Bottoms. The Transactions of the Birmingham and 

Warwickshire Archaeological Society 87:70-88. 

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J . Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolff. 1989. Historic 

shipwrecks and magnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf of Mexico: reevaluation of 

archaeological resource management zone 1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management. Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 89-0024. 

Gore, R.H. 1992. The Gulf of Mexico: A treasury of resources in the American Mediterranean. 

Sarasota: Pineapple Press. 

Gray, J. 1830. Patent Specification for a New and Improved Method of Preparing and Putting on 

Copper Sheathing for Shipping. Franklin Journal and American Mechanics’ Magazine 

10:172-173. 

Hale, T. 1695. Reprint. Mill’d Lead. London: University of London. London: Advertisement (No 

Publisher), November 20, 1695. 

Hall, H. 1884. Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the United States. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of the Interior, Census Office. Tenth Census, Volume 8. 

Hamilton, D.L. 2004. Online Conservation Research Lab Manual. Internet website: 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/napcrl.htm. February 22. 

Harris, J.R. 1966. Copper and Shipping in the Eighteenth Century. Economic History Review 

19:550-568. 

Hawkins, R. 1933. The Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins. In: J. A. Williamson ed. The 

Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins. London: The Argonaut Press. (Original edition 

1622. London: no publisher listed). 

Hocker, F. 1989. Lead Hull Sheathing in Antiquity. In: Proceedings of TROPIS 3: Third 

International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity. Athens: Hellenic Institute 

for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition. Pp. 197-206. 

Hoffman, P.E. 1980. The Spanish crown and the defense of the Caribbean 1535-1585. Baton 

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 

138 
Hofmann, E.E., and S.J. Worley. 1986. An investigation of the circulation of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Journal of Geophysical Research 91:14221-14236. 

Honson, C., C. Sylvester, and J. Moorehouse. 1806. Patent Specification for a Method of 

Sheathing Ships ...Not Heretofore Used for Those Purposes. The Repertory of Arts, 

Manufactures, and Agriculture 9. London: J. Wyatt. 

Jones, T.N. 2004. The Mica Shipwreck: Deepwater Nautical Archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico. 

M.A. Thesis, Texas A&M University, TX. 203 pp. 

Knight, R.J.B. 1976. Early Attempts at Lead and Copper Sheathing. Mariner's Mirror 66:292-

294. 

Laidlaw, F.B. 1952. The History of the Prevention of Fouling. in Marine Fouling and Its 

Prevention. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 

MacGregor, D.R. 1982. Schooners in Four Centuries. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 

MacGregor, D.R. 1997. The Schooner. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 

Marquardt, K.H. 2003. The Global Schooner. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 

McGrail, D.W. and M.R. Carnes. 1983. Shelf edge dynamics and the Nepheloid layer. In: 

Stanley D.J. and G.T. Moore, eds. Shelf Break: critical interface on continental margins. 

Special Publication 33. Tulsa: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. 

Pp. 251-264 . 

Muntz, G. 1833. Patent Specification for Invention of an Improved Manufacture of Metal Plates, 

for Sheathing the Bottoms of Ships. Franklin Journal and American Mechanics’ 

Magazine 16:195-6. 

Muntz, G.1834 Patent Specification for Improved Manufacture of Bolts, and other, the Like, 

Ship’s Fastenings. Franklin Journal and American Mechanics’ Magazine 17:44-5. 

No author. 1835. Patent Bronze Sheathing. Franklin Journal and American Mechanics Magazine 

18:206-8. 

The New Orleans Bee/ L’Abeille de la Nouvelle-Orléans. Newspaper. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Pattison, G.S. 1829. Notice of a Patent for Iron Sheathing for Ships. Franklin Journal and 

American Mechanics’ Magazine 8:94-96. 

Pearson, C.E. and P.E. Hoffman. 1995. The Last Voyage of El Nuevo Constante. Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press. 

Petty, W. 1691. The New Invention of Mill’d Lead for Ship Sheathing. London: Published report 

for the Admiralty. 

139 
Piston, W.G. 1988. Maritime Shipbuilding and Related Activities in Louisiana, 1542-1986. 

Louisiana History 29(2):163-175. 

Redard, T.E. 1985. The Port of New Orleans: An Economic History 1821-1860. Dissertation, 

Louisiana State University. 

Rehder, J.B. 1999. Delta Sugar: Louisiana’s Vanishing Plantation Landscape. Baltimore: Johns 

Hopkins University Press. 

Revere, J. 1831. Revere’s New Alloy for the Sheathing of Ships. Franklin Journal and American 

Mechanics’ Magazine 12:29. 

Royal Society of London. 1665/6. An Extract of a Letter, Written from Holland, about 

Preserving of Ships from Being Worm-eaten. Philosophical Transactions I:190-191. 

Salvador, A. 1991. Introduction. In: A. Salvador ed. The Gulf of Mexico Basin. Boulder, 

Colorado: Geological Society of America Inc. Pp. 1-13. 

Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana. Vols. I-IV. Louisiana State 

University. 

Slowey, N.C. and T. J. Crowley. 1995. Interdecadal variability of Northern Hemisphere 

circulation recorded by Gulf of Mexico corals. Geophysical Research Letters 22(17): 

2345-2348. 

Staniforth, M. 1985. The Introduction and Use of Copper Sheathing - A History. The Bulletin of 

the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 9:21-48. 

Underhill, H.A. 1952. Deep-Water Sail. Glasgow: Brown, Son and Ferguson. 

Uzielli, M. 1831. Patent Specification for the Preparation of Certain Metallic Substances, and the 

Application Thereof to the Sheathing of Ships. Franklin Journal and American 

Mechanics’ Magazine 12: 137-139. 

Weddle, R.S. 1985. Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American discovery, 1500-1685. 

College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 

Weddle, R. S. 1987. La Salle, the Mississippi, and the Gulf. College Station: Texas A&M 

University Press. 

Wetterstadt, C. 1832. Patent Specification for a Composition or Combination of Materials for 

Sheathing. Franklin Journal and American Mechanics’ Magazine 13:411-412. 

Whiteman, M. 1971. Copper for America. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

Wilkinson, J.J. 1842. On Wood, Lead, and Copper Sheathing. Nautical Magazine and Naval 

Chronicle 11:400-404. 

Winfield, R. 1997. The 50-Gun Ship. London: Caxton Publishing Group. 

140 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.