OCS Report 

MMS 2008-037

Archaeological Excavation 

of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01), 

Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS Report 

MMS 2008-037 

Archaeological Excavation 

of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01), 

Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope 

Authors 

Ben Ford 

Amy Borgens 

William Bryant 

Dawn Marshall 

Peter Hitchcock 

Cesar Arias 

Donny Hamilton 

Prepared under a contract between 

Okeanos Gas Gathering Company, 

Texas A&M University, Department of Oceanography 

and Texas A&M Research Foundation 

by 

Texas A&M University 

Department of Oceanography 

and 

Department of Oceanography 

Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation 

College Station, Texas 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior New Orleans 

Minerals Management Service July 2008 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
ii
iii

Disclaimer 

This report was prepared under a contract between Okeanos Gas Gathering Company, 

Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University, and Texas A&M Research Foundation. 

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 the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement of 

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 Office (Mail Stop 5034) 

at the following address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

Telephone: (504) 736-2619 or 

 1-800-200-GULF 

Citation 

Suggested citation: 

Ford, B., A. Borgens, W. Bryant, D. Marshall, P. Hitchcock, C. Arias, and D. Hamilton. 2008. 

Archaeological excavation of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01), Gulf of Mexico 

continental slope. Prepared by Texas A&M University. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Report MMS 2008-037. 313 pp. 

About the Cover 

The cover art depicts a photomosaic of the weapons box and subsequent artifact drawing by 

Amy Borgens. 
iv
v

Summary 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck Site (16GM01), located off the coast of Louisiana in 

approximately 4000 feet (1220 m) of water, is the remains of an approximately 50-ft (15.2-m) 

vessel that wrecked circa 1815. The site was discovered during a preconstruction survey of the 

Mardi Gras Pipeline System, owned and operated by Okeanos Gas Gathering Company 

(OGGC). The Texas A&M Oceanography Department and Center for Maritime Archaeology 

and Conservation, under contract with OGGC, conducted an archaeological data recovery 

program at the site between 21 May and 7 June 2007. 

The goals of the data recovery were to record the exposed remains of the shipwreck and 

to recover sufficient artifacts and features to reduce the visibility of the site. The data recovery 

plan was also designed to identify the age, national affiliation, function, and demise of the vessel, 

as well as to determine the nationality of the crew and to learn details of life aboard the ship 

through analysis of the recovered remains and features noted on the seafloor. Analyses of the 

hull remains and recovered artifacts were additionally used to explore the preservation of 

shipwrecks in deep water. 

The artifacts recovered from the shipwreck originated in Great Britain, France, Mexico, 

and possibly the United States. While nearly all of these artifacts were made between 1780 and 

1820, allowing the wreck to be accurately dated, this wide array of material culture makes it 

difficult to assign a nationality to the vessel or its crew. Rather, this assemblage exemplifies the 

international character of the Gulf of Mexico during the early nineteenth century. 

The rig of the vessel has been tentatively reconstructed as a schooner, based on the size 

of the vessel and the recovered boom. The hull remains suggest that the vessel was typical of the 

schooner type in the early nineteenth century Gulf of Mexico in terms of size (approximately 40–

65 tons) and layout. The nature of the cargo is unknown, but given the proximity of the vessel to 

New Orleans and the possibility that New Orleans was its home port, cotton, tobacco, coffee, and 

sugar are all viable options (Bauer 1988:128; De Grummond and Morazan 1961:62). The 

artifact assemblage includes a single box of weapons within what was likely the stern cabin and a 

6-pounder cannon; however, it is unknown if the vessel was an armed merchant vessel or a 

privateer. The first fifteen years of the nineteenth century were a tumultuous time in the Gulf of 

Mexico and it is likely that many merchant vessels carried similar weapons but privateers were 

also present and similarly armed. The cause of wrecking is unknown. Foul weather or structural 

failure are possibilities, but burning or other violence cannot be ruled out because the shipwreck 

was not fully excavated. 

Artifact preservation at the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site indicates that the low-energy 

environment of the deep Gulf is beneficial to the survival of artifacts. Many fragile artifacts, 

including sand-glasses, bottles, ceramics, and navigational instruments, survived intact. 

However, the iron from the site was corroded to an extent similar to pieces recovered from 

shallower saltwater environments. Similarly, the vessel’s hull was deteriorated, apparently by 

boring mollusks, except where buried or impregnated with iron corrosion products. This 

condition, similar to the state of the nearby Mica Shipwreck, suggests that deep shipwrecks in 

the Gulf of Mexico are subject to many of the same destructive factors as shallower shipwrecks. 

Beyond these conclusions, the Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project allowed for the refinement 

of deep-water archaeological excavation methods. This data recovery is one of only a few 

instances worldwide where an archaeological excavation has been attempted in deep water using 
vi

a remotely-operated vehicle. While the project was a success, with the majority of artifacts 

recovered intact and with proper provenience information, further refinement of these techniques 

is required. Specifically, better photographic and excavation techniques need to be developed to 

increase efficiency and accuracy. These advances can only be made through future deep-water 

excavations. However, until such a time as the methods of deep-water archaeology have been 

refined to make similar excavations regularly feasible, the significance of each wreck must be 

weighed against the costs of recovering the data. 
vii

Table of Contents 

Page 

Summary...............................................................................................................................v 

List of Figures.......................................................................................................................xi 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................xix 

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................xxi 

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Authority.............................................................................................................2 

1.2 Scope...................................................................................................................2 

1.3 Personnel.............................................................................................................3 

1.4 Project History ....................................................................................................3 

1.5 Report Structure..................................................................................................4 

2.0 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................5 

2.1 Geophysical Setting ............................................................................................5 

2.2 Sedimentology ....................................................................................................7 

2.3 Hydrological Setting ...........................................................................................12 

2.4 Atmospheric Setting............................................................................................13 

3.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................15 

3.1 Goals ...................................................................................................................15

3.2 Historical Research and Historic Context...........................................................16 

3.2.1 Archaeological Significance and Historic Contexts ............................16 

3.2.2 Historical Research ..............................................................................17 

3.3 Deep Water Archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico................................................18 

3.3.1 Previous Investigations ........................................................................18 

3.3.2 Field Equipment...................................................................................20 

3.3.3 Field Methods ......................................................................................26 

 3.3.3.1 Site Survey and Mapping......................................................26 

 3.3.3.2 Artifact Recovery..................................................................28 

 3.3.3.3 Sample Collection.................................................................30 

3.4 Artifact Conservation..........................................................................................32 

3.5 Analysis of Vessel Components .........................................................................36 

3.6 Curation of Artifacts and Records ......................................................................36 

4.0 Historical Context .........................................................................................................39 

4.1 Early European Exploration................................................................................39 

4.2 European and American Trade Routes ...............................................................40 

4.3 European Territorial Transitions Towards the End of the Eighteenth Century..43 

4.3.1 British and Spanish Growth in the Gulf...............................................43 

4.3.2 Renewed Threat of French Dominance ...............................................43 

4.4 U.S. Expansionism and the Growth of Piracy (1803–1820)...............................45 

4.4.1 The Emergence of Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico.................................45 
viii

4.4.2 Breaking the Spanish Stronghold: U.S. Control of the Northern 

Gulf Territories ..................................................................................47 

4.4.3 The Expulsion of the British at New Orleans ......................................48 

4.5 The Wars for Latin American Independence (1810–1822) ................................49 

4.5.1 Filibusters in Texas and the Mexican Republic of Galveston .............51 

4.5.2 Cartagena and New Granada ...............................................................51 

4.6 Mexican Independence and the End of Piracy in the Gulf .................................52 

4.6.1 Demise of Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico...............................................53 

4.7 Shipbuilding and Vessel Types in the Gulf of Mexico.......................................54 

4.7.1 U.S. Commercial Traffic at New Orleans............................................54 

4.7.2 International Vessels............................................................................60 

4.7.3 Naval Vessels.......................................................................................64 

4.7.4 Privateers and Slavers..........................................................................67 

4.8 Crew Sizes in the Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................71 

4.9 Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Patterns.....................................................................73 

5.0 Results ............................................................................................................................75 

5.1 Site Layout..........................................................................................................75 

5.2 Artifacts...............................................................................................................75

5.2.1 Glass.....................................................................................................78 

5.2.2 Ceramics ..............................................................................................84 

5.2.3 Metals...................................................................................................95 

5.2.4 Organics ...............................................................................................107 

5.2.5 Composites...........................................................................................112 

5.2.6 Arms and Munitions ............................................................................115 

 5.2.6.1 Large Artillery and Shot .......................................................116 

 5.2.6.2 Related Artifact Materials.....................................................121 

 5.2.6.3 Small Arms ...........................................................................126 

 5.2.6.4 Lead Shot ..............................................................................138 

 5.2.6.5 Gunflints ...............................................................................143 

 5.2.6.6 Arms and Munitions Summary.............................................145 

5.2.7 Navigational Instruments.....................................................................146 

 5.2.7.1 Sand-Glasses.........................................................................146 

 5.2.7.2 Measurement Compass .........................................................149 

 5.2.7.3 Telescope ..............................................................................149 

 5.2.7.4 Octant....................................................................................151 

 5.2.7.5 Navigational Compass ..........................................................155 

5.2.8 Stern Concretion ..................................................................................159 

5.3 Hull Remains ......................................................................................................161 

5.4 Palynology ..........................................................................................................164 

5.4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................164 

5.4.2 Depositional Environment ...................................................................166 

5.4.3 Pollen Dispersal, Deposition, and Preservation...................................167 

5.4.5 Deep Water Sites..................................................................................168 

5.4.6 Methodology........................................................................................168 
ix

5.4.7 Results..................................................................................................171 

5.4.8 Discussion............................................................................................172 

5.5 Wood Analysis....................................................................................................174 

6.0 Analysis and Conclusions.............................................................................................175 

6.1 Vessel Analysis...................................................................................................175 

6.1.1 Dates of Construction and Wrecking...................................................175 

6.1.2 Vessel Orientation and Dimensions.....................................................176 

6.1.3 Vessel Layout.......................................................................................177 

6.1.4 Vessel Correlates .................................................................................181 

6.2 Crew Size and Nationality ..................................................................................187 

6.3 Cargo and Ports of Origin and Destination.........................................................188 

6.4 Mardi Gras Shipwreck Candidates .....................................................................189 

6.5 Directions for Future Research at the Mardi Gras Shipwreck............................193 

6.6 Future Directions in Deep-Water Archaeology ..................................................195 

7.0 References Cited............................................................................................................199 

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog ............................................................................................231 

Appendix B. Site Photomosaic, Pre-Disturbance.............................................................263 

Appendix C. Site Photomosaic, After Backfilling............................................................265 

Appendix D. Site Plan.........................................................................................................267 

Appendix E. Pollen Counts ................................................................................................269 

Appendix F. Representative Pollen Types........................................................................295 

Appendix G. Wood Sample Report...................................................................................299 

Appendix H. Cannon Report .............................................................................................301 

Appendix I. Description of 26 October 2004 Incursion...................................................305 

Appendix J. Copyright Permissions..................................................................................309 
x
xi

List of Figures 

Page 

Figure 1.1. Location of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01). ...........................................1 

Figure 2.1. Bathymetry map of the Gulf of Mexico (source: Bryant 1986). .......................5 

Figure 2.2. Split core 1 and core 2........................................................................................8 

Figure 2.3. Total coarse fraction of core 2............................................................................9 

Figure 2.4. Enlarged view of the coarse fraction of core 2...................................................9 

Figure 2.5. The fine fraction (less than 0.063mm) of core 2, illustrating the silt-sized 

quartz in the core...............................................................................................10 

Figure 2.6. Total coarse fraction of core 1...........................................................................10 

Figure 2.7. The concretion or fluid expulsion feature found in core 1. ................................11 

Figure 2.8. Enlarged view of the total coarse fraction of core 1...........................................11 

Figure 2.9. Core 1, illustrating the oxidized portion of the core...........................................12 

Figure 2.10. Major currents in the Gulf of Mexico region (source: NOAA 2006a).............13 

Figure 3.1. Triton XLS-17 ROV...........................................................................................21 

Figure 3.2. Excavation dredge pump and screening system.................................................22 

Figure 3.3. Schematic of modified milk crates (illustration by B. Ford)..............................23 

Figure 3.4. Schematic of two pairs of crates attached to a piece of metal decking with 

a central handle (illustration by B. Ford)..........................................................23 

Figure 3.5. Lifting basket......................................................................................................24 

Figure 3.6. Large Artifact Retrieval Tool (LART)...............................................................24 

Figure 3.7. Site plan with sections delineated (illustration by B. Ford). ..............................27 

Figure 3.8. Sector-scanning sonar image of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site 

after backfilling (each concentric ring is a 15-ft (4.6-m) division)...................31 

Figure 4.1. Trade routes in the Gulf of Mexico, sixteenth-nineteenth centuries 

(illustration by A. Borgens, after Garrison et al. 1989:Figure 11-4 

and Lugo-Fernández et al 2007:Figure 1B)......................................................41 
xii

Figure 4.2. Nouvelle Orléans, ca. 1820 (source: Himely and Hocquart after 

Ambroise Louis Garnerai , ca. 1834, courtesy of The Historic 

New Orleans Collection, accession number 1940.4)........................................56 

Figure 4.3. Summary of tabular data in New Orleans Registers and Enrollments 

vol. 1-5 (1804–1850). .......................................................................................56 

Figure 4.4. Shipbuilding locations in the Gulf of Mexico (illustration by A. Borgens, 

after Anonymous 1877). ...................................................................................62 

Figure 4.5. Typical mid-ninteenth-century New York pilotboat (source: Harter 2003:78)..68 

Figure 5.1. Site plan (illustration by B. Ford).......................................................................76 

Figure 5.2. “French wine” bottles (artifact nos. 122, 203, 207, and 103) 

 (photograph by R. Sasaki).................................................................................79 

Figure 5.3. “British beer” bottles (photograph by R. Sasaki). ..............................................81 

Figure 5.4. London mustard bottle (photograph by R. Sasaki).............................................83 

Figure 5.5. Inkpot (photograph by R. Sasaki).......................................................................84 

Figure 5.6. Ceramics in situ.... .............................................................................................84 

Figure 5.7. Creamware plate (photograph by R. Sasaki)......................................................86 

Figure 5.8. Creamware teabowl (artifact no. 213) (photograph by R. Sasaki).....................87 

Figure 5.9. Creamware saucers (photograph by R. Sasaki)..................................................87 

Figure 5.10. Creamware bowl (photograph by R. Sasaki).....................................................88 

Figure 5.11. Creamware tureen (photograph by R. Sasaki)...................................................88 

Figure 5.12. Creamware tureen lid (photograph by R. Sasaki)..............................................89 

Figure 5.13. Creamware teapot (photograph by R. Sasaki)...................................................89 

Figure 5.14. Creamware pitcher (photograph by R. Sasaki)..................................................90 

Figure 5.15. Royal Pattern creamware (photograph by R. Sasaki)........................................91 

Figure 5.16. Creamware shaker (photograph by R. Sasaki). .................................................92 
xiii

Figure 5.17. Stoneware jug (photograph by R. Sasaki). ........................................................93 

Figure 5.18. Stoneware jug (artifact no. 300) (photograph by R. Sasaki). ............................94 

Figure 5.19. French stoneware ink or oil bottle (photograph by R. Sasaki). .........................95 

Figure 5.20. Reverse of pewter spoons (artifact no. 228-1 and 228-2) 

 (bar equals 2 cm). Note maker’s marks (photograph by R. Sasaki). ...............96 

Figure 5.21. Reconstruction of cast iron galley stove (artifact no. 302) 

 (illustration by B. Ford). ...................................................................................98 

Figure 5.22. Eight reales coin obverse (photograph by R. Sasaki). ......................................101 

Figure 5.23. Eight reales coin reverse (photograph by R. Sasaki). .......................................101 

Figure 5.24. Two reales coin obverse (photograph by R. Sasaki).........................................102 

Figure 5.25. Assorted buttons (artifact no. 225-9 (center), 225-9.1 (left), 

 and 225-9.2 (right)) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki).....................103 

Figure 5.26. Reverse of weave pattern button (artifact no. 222-11) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................104 

Figure 5.27. Obverse of weave pattern button (artifact no. 222-11) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................105 

Figure 5.28. Bouquet button (artifact no. 225-9) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................105 

Figure 5.29. Wooden button (artifact no. 222-6) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................106 

Figure 5.30. Leather footwear heel (artifact no. 138-2) (photograph by A. Borgens)...........107 

Figure 5.31. Bone toothbrush head with bristles in place (artifact no. 134-6) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................108 

Figure 5.32. Selected bone handle scales (photograph by R. Sasaki)....................................109 

Figure 5.33. Wormed and leather-parceled rope (artifact no. 140-2) 

(upper scale marked in cm; photograph by A. Borgens). .................................110 

Figure 5.34. Double sheave and pin recovered in double-block configuration 

(artifact no. 140-1) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki)................. 111 
xiv

Figure 5.35. Boom or gaff (artifact no. 142) (photograph by A. Borgens)............................112 

Figure 5.36. Pocket watch face and bezel (photograph by R. Sasaki)...................................113 

Figure 5.37. Carpenter’s smoothing plane (artifact no. 218) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................114 

Figure 5.38. Coffee mill (artifact no. 210) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki).......115 

Figure 5.39. Arms distribution at wreck site (illustration by A. Borgens, after B. Ford)......116 

Figure 5.40. Artifact number 400: (a) at 4000 feet and (b) during conservation...................119 

Figure 5.41. Mardi Gras cannon (illustration by A. Borgens, nomenclature from Manucy 

1949:89). ...........................................................................................................120 

Figure 5.42. Engraved trunnions (illustration by A. Borgens). .............................................120 

Figure 5.43. Naval Gun Carriages. (a) typical naval carriage (Muller 1995:94 [1780]) 

 (b) early nineteenth-century 12-pounder carronade (Cooke 1989:44) 

 (c) bed and slide mount for a 24-pounder carronade 

 circa 1820 (Clowes 1900:540)........................................................ 122 

Figure 5.44. Gun carriage artifacts 400-1 and 400-2 (illustration by A. Borgens)................123 

Figure 5.45. Reconstructed cannon and carriage (illustration by A. Borgens)......................124 

Figure 5.46. Sketch of stern concretion (artifact no. 135) showing the distribution 

of shot (illustration by A. Borgens).................................................. 125 

Figure 5.47. Arrangement of iron shot...................................................................................125 

Figure 5.48. Focal points of the weapons trade (illustration by A. Borgens).......................126 

Figure 5.49. Weapons box. (a) photo-mosaic image; (b) graphic illustration created 

from multiple video captures (illustration by A. Borgens)...............................132 

Figure 5.50. Orientation of weapons box: sketched from video (a), depicting lower 

 corner (b), and as recorded in video (c) (illustration by A. Borgens)...............134 

Figure 5.51. Butt plate (artifact no. 229) (illustration by A. Borgens). .................................135 

Figure 5.52. Decorative tangs. (a) artifact 229; (b) 1740 Prussian Infantry musket; 

(c) ca. 1760 Dutch military longarm (scale approximated). 

(illustration by A. Borgens after Ahearn 2005: Figures 440 and 478). ............136 
xv

Figure 5.53. Buttplate on weapons box. ................................................................................136 

Figure 5.54. Pistol arrangement (illustration by A. Borgens)................................................137 

Figure 5.55. Edged weapon artifacts. (a) stirrup hilt in situ (b) pommel and grip 

(c) stirrup hilt reconstruction (illustration by A. Borgens). ..............................138 

Figure 5.56. Stirrup hilts. (a) American saber or short sword [ca.1775]; 

(b) American short saber [ca. 1775-1783]; (c) English short saber 

[ca. 1775-1790]; (d) American hanger [ca.1790]; (e) French Hussar 

saber [ca 1765-1785]; (f) Dutch short saber [circa 1774]. Illustration 

by A. Borgens after Bazelon 1987:107, Moore 1967: 144, and 

Neumann 1991:113 117, 125, 162....................................................................138 

Figure 5.57. Lead shot from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, No. 140-10. 

Calibers (l to r): .35, .43, .56, .63, and .68 (photograph by A. Borgens)..........139 

Figure 5.58. Mardi Gras Shipwreck shot calibers..................................................................140 

Figure 5.59. Modified shot, magnified to show marks (photograph by A. Borgens)............142 

Figure 5.60. Modified lead (artifact no. 135-1). Image at right is an enlarged view 

of the larger flattened lead (photograph by A. Borgens).......................... 143 

Figure 5.61. Shot impressions in wood (artifact no. 223-8) (photograph by A. Borgens). ...143 

Figure 5.62. Gunflints (artifact no. 134-3) (photograph by A. Borgens)...............................144 

Figure 5.63. Distribution of navigational instruments (illustration by B. Ford) ...................146 

Figure 5.64. Sand-glasses (photograph by R. Sasaki)............................................................147 

Figure 5.65. Measurement compass (photograph by R. Sasaki)............................................148 

Figure 5.66. Telescope (photograph by R. Sasaki)................................................................150 

Figure 5.67. Telescope eyepiece (photograph by R. Sasaki).................................................150 

Figure 5.68. Detail of X-ray image depicting inscription on eye-piece 

 tube (photograph by G. Schwarz) .....................................................................151 

Figure 5.69. Parts of an octant (image by B. Ford after Wikipedia 2007).............................153 

Figure 5.70. Octant horizon mirror assembly (artifact no. 131) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................154 
xvi

Figure 5.71. Octant index mirror assembly (artifact no. 133) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................154 

Figure 5.72. Artifact lot 134-4, including likely octant fragments 

(photograph by R. Sasaki).................................................................................155 

Figure 5.73. Inscription on underside of octant shade base (artifact no. 133) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki) .....................................................155 

Figure 5.74. Circa 1780 compass and binnacle (source: Falconer 1970:Plates I and 

 II [1780])...........................................................................................................157 

Figure 5.75. Compass number 127 (photograph by R. Sasaki). ............................................158 

Figure 5.76. Compass number 128 (photograph by R. Sasaki). ............................................158 

Figure 5.77. Brass compass cover ring (artifact no. 137) 

 (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). ....................................................159 

Figure 5.78. Stern concretion (artifact no. 135) during conservation. Box in foreground 

and domed concretion in left background. Drilled planks in left foreground 

and hull remains in right background (squares in fiberglass grid supporting 

concretion measure 1 inch on a side; phiotograph by R. Sasaki). ....................160 

Figure 5.79. Stern concretion (artifact no. 135) during conservation. Box and cannon 

 shot visible above frames and planning (squares in fiberglass grid 

 supporting concretion measure 1 inch on a side; phiotograph by R. Sasaki). ..160 

Figure 5.80. Sketch of hull remains situated near cannon (illustration by B. Ford)..............162 

Figure 5.81. Sketch of hull remains situated near weapons box. Ceiling planking 

shaded light grey, frames shaded medium grey, and hull planking 

shaded dark grey (illustration by B. Ford)........................................................162 

Figure 5.82. Pine pollen grain................................................................................................167 

Figure 5.83. Lead grains found in sand-glasses.....................................................................172 

Figure 5.84. Cores A and B. ..................................................................................................174 

Figure 6.1. Sheer plan, deck arrangements, and longitudinal view of the “Schooner 

For Port Jackson,” likely Mercury (source: Marquardt 2003:105)...................182 

Figure 6.2. Lines drawings, bow and stern view, and main frame cross-section of the 

“Schooner For Port Jackson,” likely Mercury 

(source: Marquardt 2003:106). .........................................................................183 
xvii

Figure 6.3. Rigging plan of the “Schooner For Port Jackson,” likely Mercury 

(source: Marquardt 2003:108). .........................................................................184 

Figure 6.4. Lines and deck plan of the John (source: MacGregor 1980:109). .....................185 

Figure 6.5. Lines and sail plan of U.S. schooner Vigilant (source: Marquardt 2003:127)...186 
xviii
xix

List of Tables 

Page 

Table 3.1. Newspapers Consulted.........................................................................................18 

Table 4.1. Vessels at New Orleans, 1804–1820. ..................................................................55 

Table 4.2. Average Vessel Dimensions, 1804–1820. ...........................................................58 

Table 4.3. State and Municipal Shipbuilding Quantities. .....................................................61 

Table 4.4. Summary of Foreign Vessels Operating in the Gulf of Mexico, 1800–1830......63 

Table 4.5. Armament of U.S. Naval Vessels. .......................................................................65 

Table 4.6. Former U.S. Gunboats Registered at New Orleans. ............................................66 

Table 4.7. Privateer Armament.............................................................................................69 

Table 4.8. Vessels Condemned for the Importation of Slaves..............................................71 

Table 4.9. Schooner Crew Sizes on U.S. Merchant Vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.............72 

Table 4.10. Summary of Eastern Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes, 1794–1831. .........................74 

Table 5.1. Diagnostic Artifacts Recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck.......................77 

Table 5.2. Summary of Mardi Gras Shipwreck Bottles........................................................79 

Table 5.3. Armament of Gulf of Mexico Vessels, 1800–1830.............................................118 

Table 5.4. Firearm Measurements. .......................................................................................131 

Table 5.5. Calibers of Weaponry. .........................................................................................141 

Table 5.6. Summary of Mardi Gras Shipwreck Sand-Glasses..............................................148 

Table 5.7. Summary of Eighteenth and Early-Nineteenth Century Scantlings 

 from Archaeological Evidence. ...........................................................................165 

Table 5.8. List of Palynology Samples. ................................................................................170 

Table 5.9. List of Major Pollen Types Identified..................................................................173 

Table 6.1. Ratios of Mast and Cabin Positions.....................................................................179 
xx

Table 6.2. Mardi Gras Shipwreck Candidates. .....................................................................190 
xxi

Acknowledgements 

 The Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project was made possible by the dedication and hard work of 

numerous people from several different professional fields working together towards a common goal. For 

this the project’s management is truly grateful. First and foremost, Texas A&M University and the 

Department of Oceanography would like to thank Okeanos Gas Gathering Company for funding the 

project; especially to Randy Joseck, Thomas Garrett, and Sam Lun for their support and guidance. 

Likewise, thank you to the Minerals Management Service; specifically to Jack Irion, David Ball, and 

Chris Horrell for providing assistance both in and out of the field. Several archaeologists had key roles 

in planning, researching, conducting the fieldwork, and the writing of this report, for which we are truly 

grateful. Many thanks go to: Donny Hamilton, Ben Ford, Amy Borgens, Laura Landry, Helen DeWolf, 

Kevin Crisman, Ayse Atauz, Sam Koepnick, Alexis Catsambis, Ashley Gould, and John Hamilton. Also, 

our gratitude goes to Stuart Burbach and Cesar Arias for their time, assistance, and insight throughout the 

duration of this project. To the companies who helped plan and execute the fieldwork phase of the 

project, thank you; specifically to Jeremiah Gilbreath, Mike Horan, and the entire ROV crew at Veolia 

Environmental Services; the crew of RSV Toisa Vigilant; Shawn Bartlett and Terry Lease at Perry 

Slingsby Systems; Trevor Hughes, Marcus Russell, Shannon Frame and Kari Schaapveld at UTEC 

Survey; Brett White at Kongsberg Maritime; Robert Church and Dan Warren at C&C Technologies; Thor 

Sperre and Wenche Haugerud at Sperre AS; and Brett Phanuef and Fredrick Soreide of ProMare. Many 

thanks to Rick Allen, Lawrence Taylor, Curt Pair and Kim Eslinger at Nautilus Productions for creating 

an outstanding documentary. To Keith Moorehead of National Geographic Society, we appreciate your 

taking the time to come out on the cruise. Thanks also to Della Scott-Ireton and the Florida Public 

Archaeology Network for your assistance in the field and constructing an outstanding webpage. Finally, a 

very sincere and special thanks to Charlene Miller, Phyllis Bonifazi, Lesa Feldhousen, and Steve Garrett 

at the Texas A&M Research Foundation. 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project 2007 Field Crew 

 
xxii
1

1.0 Introduction 

By Ben Ford 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck site (16GM01) is located in the Gulf of Mexico off the 

Louisiana coast in water depths of approximately 1220 meters (m) (4000 ft) (Figure 1.1). This 

early nineteenth century shipwreck site was discovered during a preconstruction video survey of 

the Mardi Gras Pipeline System, owned and operated by Okeanos Gas Gathering Company 

(OGGC). The Texas A&M (TAMU) Oceanography Department and the TAMU Center for 

Maritime Archaeology and Conservation, under contract with OGGC, conducted an 

archaeological data recovery program at the site between 21 May and 7 June 2007. This project 

presented an opportunity to investigate a significant period in Gulf of Mexico history through a 

unique artifact assemblage. 

Figure 1.1. Location of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01). 
2

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck site was characterized by a scatter of large and small 

diagnostic artifacts and features within a discrete 20 m (65 ft) long by 5 m (15 ft) wide area of 

the silty, nearly flat bottom. The hull and artifacts were distributed along a northwest to 

southeast line, with the probable bow situated to the northwest. These artifacts, which were 

nearly all in a remarkable state of preservation, included an anchor, a cannon, a ship’s stove, 

ceramic tableware, glass bottles, navigation instruments, and a wooden chest containing an 

assortment of small arms. The remains of the ship’s hull were visible in specific areas, but the 

majority of the ship was deteriorated or buried in the sediment and beyond the scope of this 

project. The artifact assemblage and hull remains suggest that the vessel wrecked circa 1808–

1820 and was constructed during the preceding decade. 

1.1 Authority 

The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, 

and other applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations require that the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) of the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) consider 

the effect of its actions, including the permitting of oil and gas exploration and development, on 

significant archaeological resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). As a consequence, 

MMS regulations require operators to take steps to identify, report, and avoid causing harm to 

significant archaeological sites. MMS deemed Site 16GM01 to be potentially eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D of Department of the 

Interior regulation 36 CFR 60.4. The resulting Phase III Data Recovery Plan was intended to 

mitigate adverse effects associated with a permitted activity. 

1.2 Scope 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck data recovery plan was designed to record the shipwreck and 

reduce the site’s profile through the recovery of specific artifacts. This plan consisted of the 

following components: 

1. Accurate and precise records of the shipwreck site before, during, and after excavation 

in the form of georectified photomosaics and digital video footage; 

2. Site planview map based on photomosaics; 

3. Recovery and conservation of sufficient artifacts to reduce the surface visibility of the 

site; 

4. Analysis of recovered artifacts with the goal of identifying the period, nationality, and 

occupation of the ship; 

5. Hull analysis with the goal of identifying the type and period of the vessel; 

6. Historic research with the goal of providing an historic context for the wreck and 

possibly identifying the nature, period, nationality, and identity of the ship; and 

7. Analysis of water, sediment, pollen, and wood samples with the goal of describing the 

site setting and possible origins of the vessel. 
3

1.3 Personnel 

Project leadership was provided by Dr. William Bryant (Principal Investigator), Drs. 

Donny Hamilton and Ayse Atauz (Co-Principal Investigators), Peter Hitchcock (Project 

Manager). The archaeological staff included Alexis Catsambis, Ben Ford, Laura Landry, and Dr. 

Della Scott-Ireton, with field conservation conducted by Amy Borgens and John Hamilton. Dr. 

Helen DeWolf, John Hamilton, Kimberly Rash, and George Schwarz conserved the artifacts at 

the Conservation Research Laboratory. Photographs were taken by Randal Sasaki and Amy 

Borgens. Archaeological computing was conducted by Cesar Arias, Ashley Gould, and Samuel 

Koepnick. Cesar Arias also constructed the final photomosaics. MMS was represented offshore 

by Dr. Jack Irion, David Ball, and Dr. Chris Horrell. Offshore and remotely operated vehicle 

(ROV) services were provided by Veolia Environmental Services. UTEC provided offshore 

positioning and Nautilus Productions prepared the project documentary. Dr. Dawn Marshall 

conducted the pollen analysis, while Dr. William Bryant performed the water and sediment 

analysis, and Dr. Regis Miller executed the wood analysis. Ben Ford prepared the report with 

contributions by Amy Borgens, Dr. William Bryant, Dr. Dawn Marshall, and Peter Hitchcock. 

Jessi Halligan edited the text. Dr. Kevin Crisman, Laura Landry, and Amy Borgens provided 

comments on the content and presentation of the report. 

1.4 Project History 

The target was first identified by the MMS during the review of the Okeanos pipeline 

application on 14 November 2001. The Agency placed a 125-foot avoidance zone around the 

reported location but required no further investigation. On 2 September 2002 OGGC conducted 

a preconstruction video survey of the pipeline route using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). A 

detail inspection of the target, labeled D-11, revealed the remains of a historic shipwreck. On 11 

August 2004 the MMS diverted a research vessel working in the general vicinity to inspect the 

site. 

The August 2004 survey visually documented the site and collected two diagnostic 

artifacts for dating and identification purposes. ROV video documentation of the site, collected 

over several survey transects, was used to produce a site plan for organization and planning 

purposes. The two recovered artifacts, a creamware pôt de crème and a creamware bowl, 

provided a tentative date of 1780-1820 for the wreck. Creamware was widely produced during 

the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and is common on many North American sites 

from this period. The type of undecorated ceramics found on 16GM01 may have remained in 

circulation for several years after their production (Hume 2001). 

After determining that the site was probably eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places and after consultation with the Departmental Consulting Archaeologist, the 

Advisory Council for Historic Preservation and the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office, 

OGGC agreed with MMS that the proximity of the pipeline constituted a threat to the site and 

that the best means of protecting the site was through data recovery to reduce the visibility of the 

site to sonar from ROV’s operating along the pipeline (McColloch, personal communication 

2004). The site was disturbed in October 2004 by an unsupervised ROV incursion, following 

Hurricane Ivan, emphasizing the need for a data recovery operation. The OGGC contracted with 

TAMU to perform the data recovery. Project planning was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina in 

August 2005. 
4

The site was surveyed by C&C Technologies during May 2005. This survey utilized an 

autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) employing a Kongsberg EM2000 multibeam swath 

system to collect high-resolution multibeam bathymetry data for the site. The survey was 

conducted at 4-m (13-ft) line spacing over the shipwreck with the sensor at 10 m (32 ft) off the 

seafloor (Robert Church Personal Communication). This system produced an extremely highresolution, accurately-positioned 3-D image of the seafloor in which the weapons chest, stove, 

cannon, and stern concretion were clearly identifiable. 

A team from MMS and C&C Technologies returned to the site in July 2006 with 

OGGC’s assistance. During this investigation, the archaeologists collected detailed video 

images of the wreck site with a high-resolution camera that captured features and details 

previously unobserved. Several photomosaic transects were performed. These detailed videos 

of the site revealed several dozen more exposed artifacts, including a number of potentially 

diagnostic artifacts such as a nautical telescope and sand-glasses, as well as indications of buried 

features that were thought to be parts of the ship's hull. Several structural components of the 

vessel were observed closely. For example, a bulkhead next to the weapons chest and timbers 

located west of the ship’s stove were tentatively identified. The video also documented changes 

to the site that had occurred from the unsupervised ROV incursion, principally the exposure of 

hull timbers and artifacts caused by a “prop-washing” effect of the ROV’s thrusters. 

Based on these previous investigations, TAMU drafted a preliminary site plan and began 

preparation for the data recovery. The data recovery research design was submitted to MMS in 

April 2007, and the data recovery fieldwork began in May of that year. 

1.5 Report Structure 

The following report details the methods, analysis, and results of the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck data recovery and concludes with remarks on the identification of Site 16GM01 and 

future directions for deepwater archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico. Chapter 2 describes the 

environmental and geophysical setting of the wreck site, including the water and sediment 

analysis. The methods employed to record and excavate the site, as well as conserve the artifacts 

and conduct the historical research are detailed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 places the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck in its historical context by describing the maritime history of the Gulf of Mexico with 

a particular focus on the early nineteenth century. Chapter 5 presents the results of the data 

recovery, describing the artifacts and hull remains. These results are then synthesized with the 

historical record in Chapter 6 along with concluding remarks. Throughout the report, 

measurements are provided in both International System (SI) and English units. In all cases, 

precedence is given to the units in which the measurement was made or in which the item was 

originally constructed (e.g. English units are used to describe artifacts) and the conversion is 

provided parentheses. 
5

2.0 Environmental Setting 

By Dr. William Bryant and Ben Ford 

2.1 Geophysical Setting 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck lies approximately 64 kilometers (km) (40 miles [mi]) 

southeast of the Mississippi Delta’s South Pass and is positioned in the upper Redfish Valley 

(see Figure 1.1). The Gulf of Mexico is an Atlantic-type passive continental margin and a 

subtropical, micro-tidal (<0.5 m tidal range), small semi-enclosed ocean basin that extends 

approximately 1368 km (850 mi) east to west and 1126 km (700 mi) north to south (Figure 2.1). 

The basin was formed by rifting during the Late Triassic to Early Jurassic followed by spreading 

during the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous. The dominant source of sediments in the Gulf is 

the Mississippi River, one of the world’s largest rivers (Coleman et al. 1986). 

Figure 2.1. Bathymetry map of the Gulf of Mexico (source: Bryant 1986). 
6

During the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic, rifting occurred between the North American 

plate and the African/South American and Eurasian plates. As the North American plate drifted 

away from the Africa/South American and Eurasian plates, the Gulf of Mexico basin was born in 

the stretched zone. Seawater flowed intermittently into the basin, depositing salt more than 1.8 

miles (2.8 km) thick during the Late Middle Jurassic (Martin and Bouma 1978). 

In the Late Jurassic, carbonate deposition dominated Gulf geomorphology. During the 

Middle Cretaceous, slow subsidence of the carbonate shelves, combined with little clastic input, 

resulted in a reef system (Stuart City/Lower Cretaceous reef trend) that extended from southern 

Texas eastward to southern Louisiana to the shelf edge of Florida and to the eastern Campeche 

Escarpment. In the Late Cretaceous-Paleocene, due to a Laramide orogeny in the interior 

continent, detrital sediments started to flux into the northern and western Gulf of Mexico 

(Coleman et al. 1986). The Gulf of Mexico was inactive during the late Eocene. In the 

Oligocene, the southern Rockies underwent intensive volcanism, and in the early Miocene, 

normal faulting molded the relief we see today. During the middle Miocene and Pliocene, the 

western U.S. underwent a series of broad uplifts (Winker 1982). In sum, throughout the 

Cenozoic, the total thickness of sediment deposition was estimated to be over 9.3 miles (14.8 

km) in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Martin and Bouma 1978). In the southern and eastern 

part of the Gulf of Mexico, carbonate deposition has remained active since the Late 

Jurassic-Early Cretaceous, with only small amounts of detrital sediments being deposited in the 

Quaternary (Coleman et al. 1986). 

The salt diapers in the region around the Mardi Gras site are typical of the salt structures 

that comprise the whole of the continental slope and rise offshore of Texas and Louisiana. The 

halokinesis of allochthonous salt governs the nature of that area and is the result of the migration 

of Jurassic salt originally laid down during the separation of North American from the South 

American and African continents during the Jurassic period (Salvador 1991a). 

At the northern end of the Florida Escarpment is the north-northeast to south-southwest 

aligned De Soto Canyon, which separates the carbonate-dominated Florida Platform from the 

terrigenous-dominated environment to the west. West of the De Soto Canyon, many canyons 

running in a north-northwest to south-southeast direction formed during the late Wisconsin 

sea-level lowstand. These canyons include Dorsey and Sounder Canyons. Except for a canyon 

due west of the De Soto Canyon that cuts through the shelf break, all other canyons seem to 

originate at a water depth of 1300 feet or deeper and extend more than 25 miles basinward. To 

the west of these canyons are a series of pancake-shaped, 3 to 9 mile-wide salt domes, which 

become more scattered and smaller in size in a basinward direction. The first sub-salt well 

drilled in the Gulf of Mexico was by Exxon Corporation on one of the pancake domes called the 

Mickey Salt Sheet, for the obvious reasons. The name was later changed to Mica to avoid 

conflicts with the Walt Disney Corporation (Salvador 1991a). 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck is located 120 miles from the edge of the major salt sheet. 

During the last sea level lowstand, in the late Pleistocene, the majority of sediments draining into 

the Gulf of Mexico did so via the largest submarine canyon in the Gulf of Mexico, the 

Mississippi Canyon. The canyon is located 70 miles west of the Mardi Gras Site. The canyon 

has a width of about 20 miles. Approximately 75 miles east of the canyon, the present 

Mississippi Fan Delta, approximately 1000 years old, appears. The canyon/fan complex extends 

for more than 310 miles past the shelf edge onto the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain and occupies an area 

of about 56,000 square miles. 
7

The Mississippi Fan (see Figure 2.1) is a large deep-sea fan consisting of a broad arcuate 

accumulation of predominantly Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments. The Mississippi Fan is 

flanked on the east by the West Florida carbonate platform and on the north and west by the 

Texas Louisiana Continental Slope. The deeper parts of the fan merge with the Florida Plain to 

the southeast and with the Sigsbee Plain to the southwest. Significant contributions to the fan 

have come from sources other than the Mississippi Embayment; particular sedimentation 

patterns in the Gulf of Mexico are mainly influenced by geomorphology, halokinesis, faulting, 

sea level changes, and sediment input. The last major sea level lowstand in the area, the 

Wisconsinan, occurred about 18,000 yr ago; during that time sea level dropped about 200 to 390 

m (Bloom 1983). At that time, the present Mardi Gras site was less than 20 miles south of the 

Mississippi-Alabama continental shelf. 

During the early Holocene (14,000 to 11,000 yr BP), sea level rose rapidly. The rapid 

melting of the ice sheet created large discharges that carried large amounts of sediments that 

were deposited on the outer shelf and upper slope in a short time. The rapid deposition and 

burial produced overpressured sediments on steep slopes that caused instability, mass 

movements, and sediment gravity flows (Prior and Coleman 1980; van den Bold et al. 1987). 

The Mississippi River during the last lowstand in sea level, late Wisconsinan, carried more than 

13 times its current sediment load (80 X 1011 kg·yr-1 compared with 6 X 1011 kg·yr-1; Perlmutter 

1985). When sea level was low, sediments migrated seaward, which caused rapid build-out in 

front of the prograding delta lobes (Coleman et al. 1986). During the Holocene, sea level rise 

and a concurrent lessening of terrigenous sediment input deposited sediments at a much slower 

rate (<10 cm·kyr-1) (van den Bold et al. 1987). 

During sea level highstands, the majority of the coarse-grained sediments are trapped 

within the shelf province, and hemipelagic sediment settling becomes dominant in the deep water 

(Bryant et al. 1995). Sea-level highstand deposits tend to be parallel-laminated but are highly 

bioturbated and comparatively thin compared to sea-level lowstand deposits. 

2.2 Sedimentology 

Two sediment samples were collected with push cores (1 m x 7 cm diameter [3.28 ft x 

2.75 in]) for the purpose of determining sediment type and basic properties. One sediment core 

was retrieved from the shipwreck site, and another was taken 500 feet (130.8 m) from the site. 

The cores were cut in half lengthwise, and photographed before and after oxidation. The fine 

fraction sediment of less than 0.063 mm (silt and clay) was separated from the coarse fraction. 

The fine fraction of Core 2, which was taken 500 feet (130.8 m) from the shipwreck site, was 

examined with the aid of a petrography microscope with magnification of 40X to 250X. 

Figure 2.2 illustrates the half sections of the examined cores. Core 2 consists of silty 

clays that contain a coarse fraction almost entirely composed of foraminifera tests and a few 

worm tubes (Figure 2.3). The sediments in Core 2 have a bulk density of 1.2 to 1.3 grams per 

cubic centimeter and shear strength of 1 to 2 kilopascals. The total coarse fraction of Core 2, 

which makes up less than 1 percent of the total core mass, is illustrated in Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5 

is a picture of the fine fraction of Core 2 obtained with the aid of a petrographic microscope that 

shows quartz particles and coarse aggregated clays. 

In contrast to Core 2, Core 1 had a very large coarse fraction (the fraction larger than 

0.062 mm) (Figures 2.6–2.8). The coarse fraction of Core 1 (Figure 2.6) contained shells, shell 
8

fragments, particles of wood, possibly some bone fragments, fecal pellets, and various forms of 

concretions. Figure 2.7 is a close-up of a concretion, worm tube, or a fluid expulsion found in 

Core 1. A hole in the center of the concretion goes from one end of the concretion to the other. 

Two of these structures were found in Core 2. 

Figure 2.7 shows the oxidization of Core 1. The oxidization is the result of the high 

organic content sediments of Core 1 being exposed to the oxygen in the atmosphere. The 

sediments in the lower portions of Core 1 could be called sapropels. Sapropels are defined as a 

mud, slime, or ooze deposited in more or less open water. Sapropels may vary widely in 

composition, depending upon relative contributions from decomposing substances derived from 

plants and animals. Hydrogen sulfide, produced during the initial biochemical degradation of 

these substances, promotes preservation of the most resistant parts of the organisms. Most 

marine sapropelic deposits contain no appreciable contribution from humic substances of 

terrestrial origin. Sapropels usually contain 8 to 10 percent total organic carbon. 

It may be a stretch of the imagination to call portions of Core 1 sapropels, but they do 

behave and appear like sapropels. The interesting aspect of all this is that the majority of organic 

material present is directly from the ship and the organisms that find the hard grounds created by 

the shipwreck a proper habitat. 

Figure 2.2. Split core 1 and core 2. 
9

Figure 2.3. Total coarse fraction of core 2. 

Figure 2.4. Enlarged view of the coarse fraction of core 2. 
10

Figure 2.5. The fine fraction (less than 0.063mm) of core 2, illustrating the silt-sized quartz in the core. 

Figure 2.6. Total coarse fraction of core 1. The large object with a hole in its top is a concretion or a fluid 

expulsion feature. 
11

Figure 2.7. The concretion or fluid expulsion feature found in core 1. 

Figure 2.8. Enlarged view of the total coarse fraction of core 1. 
12

Figure 2.9. Core 1, illustrating the oxidized portion of the core. 

2.3 Hydrological Setting 

The Loop Current, which enters the Gulf of Mexico through the Yucatan Channel and 

exits through the Florida Straits, is the dominant surface current in the Gulf (Figure 2.10). This 

current transports warm Caribbean water into the Gulf as a result of the circulation caused by the 

Yucatan and Florida Currents (Hoffman and Worley 1986). The clockwise motion of the Loop 

Current has an eddy effect that results in counter-clockwise circulation along the LouisianaTexas shelf during all but the summer months. During June, July, and August, the coastal 

currents reverse, flowing northward along the lower Texas coast and eastward along the 

Louisiana and upper Texas coasts (Cochrane and Kelly 1986). Tides, winds, and freshwater 

inflow also affect surface circulation. For example, the inner side of the shelf is characterized by 

a coastal flow driven by easterly winds that drives the discharge of the Mississippi and 

Atchafalaya rivers towards Mexico. In general, shelf currents are coherent with prevailing wind 

patterns, with maximum wind-induced currents occurring mid-shelf and the wind effect 

decreasing offshore (Atkinson et al. 1986). 
13

Figure 2.10. Major currents in the Gulf of Mexico region (source: NOAA:2006a). 

2.4 Atmospheric Setting 

Winds in the Gulf of Mexico are highly variable, but the winter winds generally travel in 

a westerly direction, while the summer winds often come from the northeast. The summer winds 

tend to be dominated by an anti-cyclonical pattern over North America, traveling west/northwest, 

but they can be counteracted by other patterns originating over the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricanes 

and tropical storms most often enter the Gulf from the southeast after being generated in the 

equatorial Atlantic Ocean or Caribbean Sea. 

Historic navigation routes within the Gulf of Mexico were determined by these current 

and wind patterns (Lugo-Fernández et al. 2007). There is evidence that Spanish captains 

recognized the easterly flow along the outer shelf as early as 1519 and used it to speed their 

voyages from Veracruz to the eastern Gulf (Salvador 1991b:2). The basic routes through the 

Gulf entered through the Yucatan Channel and followed the prevailing winds and currents 

westward towards Veracruz and exited by following the northern Gulf coast east into the Straits 

of Florida and the Bahama Channel. The seasonal variability in winds and currents caused local 

fluctuations in these routes. For example, Spanish captains leaving Veracruz sailed either 

northeast or north-northeast depending on the prevailing winds. This course, combined with the 

season, dictated their prescribed course through the Gulf of Mexico and the latitude at which 

they turned east. Local variations in current and winds also resulted in varying maximum 

attainable speeds in different regions of the Gulf, with currents accounting for as much as 50 

percent of a ship’s speed (Lugo-Fernández et al. 2007). 

Storms, both during winter and summer months, are a constant threat in the Gulf of 

Mexico. As early as 1566, Spanish documents mention Nortes, winter storms, and their effects 

on ships (Garrison et al. 1989a). The most damaging storms, however, tend to occur between 

June and November, when tropical storms (winds of 34 to 64 knots) and hurricanes (winds 

greater than 64 knots), regularly pass through the Gulf. Despite the dangers of sailing during 
14

hurricane season, many captains and ship owners were willing to weigh the risk against the 

profits of a successful journey. Other captains were forced to sail during hurricane season due to 

delays in loading cargo, imprecise understanding of weather patterns, or other impediments that 

caused the vessel to sail later than planned (Lugo-Fernández et al. 2007; Pearson and Hoffman 

1995:14). 
15

3.0 Methodology 

By Ben Ford 

3.1 Goals 

The goals of the archaeological data recovery were to record the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

and to reduce wreck visibility to ROVs using sonar along the adjacent pipeline through the 

removal of artifacts. These activities were conducted primarily within the bounds of the 

shipwreck as defined by hull remains and artifact distribution; however, the surrounding area 

was visually inspected and fill was removed from an adjacent location. 

The purpose of these activities was to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the 

installation of the Mardi Gras gas pipeline as well as the unsupervised ROV visit in 2004. The 

data recovery was designed to address the following research questions: 

• What are the identity, age, national affiliation, and function of the vessel? 

• What can be learned about shipboard life at the time the vessel was in use? 

• Where was the vessel constructed? Was it constructed for a different purpose than 

its final use? 

• Why was the ship armed? Was it defensive or offensive? 

• What caused the vessel to be lost? Why was it lost in this particular spot? Does it 

relate to other losses in the area? 

• Does the vessel relate to any specific historical event or person? 

• How does the fact that the vessel lies in 1220 m (4000 ft) of water affect artifact 

preservation? 

• How do site formation processes differ in deepwater environments? 

• What was the vessel’s place within prevailing global economic and geo-political 

systems at the time of its loss? 

To answer these questions, five research strategies were used: 

• Historical research, including primary and secondary sources; 

• Site mapping and inspection through still and video photography; 

• Artifact recovery and excavation; 

• Laboratory processing, analysis, and conservation of recovered cultural materials; 

and 

• Analysis of recovered sediment, water, wood, and pollen samples. 
16

This chapter describes the methods used during each of the background research and field 

activities. The results of the historical research and field investigations are reported in Chapters 

4 and 5, respectively. The results of the research and field investigations are evaluated and 

interpreted in Chapter 6. 

3.2 Historical Research and Historic Context 

3.2.1 Archaeological Significance and Historic Contexts 

The different phases of archaeological investigation (survey, site evaluation, and data 

recovery) reflect preservation planning standards for the identification, evaluation, registration, 

and treatment of cultural resources (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). This planning structure 

pivots around the eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. The National Register is the official federal list of properties studied and found 

worthy of preservation. The results of a field survey and site evaluation are used to make 

recommendations about the significance and eligibility of any resource. 

The standards for determining the significance of cultural resources, a task required of 

federal agencies, are the guidelines provided by the NPS (36 CFR 60): the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation. The following four criteria are given for determining if the “quality of 

significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling and association” (36 CFR 60): 

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history; or 

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction; or 

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or 

history. 

Most archaeological sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places have been 

determined eligible under criterion A and/or D. For eligibility under these criteria, a number of 

issues must be addressed, including the kind of data contained in the site, the relative importance 

of research topics suggested by the data, whether these data are unique or redundant, and the 

current state of knowledge relating to the research topic(s) (McManamon 1990). A defensible 

argument must establish that a site “has important legitimate associations and/or information 

value based upon existing knowledge and interpretations that have been made, evaluated, and 

accepted” (McManamon 1990:15). MMS deemed Site 16GM01 to be potentially eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. 

An historical context is fundamental to the significance of cultural resources because it 

provides the foundation for the determination of significance by placing the site in relation to 

other resources. An historical context is defined as follows: At minimum, a historical context is a 

body of information about past events and historic processes organized by theme, place, and time. In a 
17

broader sense, an historic context is a unit of organized information about our prehistory and history 

according to the stages of development occurring at various times and places (NPS 1985). 

Historical contexts provide an organizational format that groups information about 

related historical properties based on a theme, geographic limits, and chronological periods. 

Each historical context is related to the developmental history of an area, region, or theme (e.g., 

agriculture, transportation, waterpower), and identifies the significant patterns that particular 

resource can represent. Historical contexts are developed by: 

• Identifying the concepts, time period, and geographic limits for the context; 

• Collecting and assessing the existing information within these limits; 

• Identifying locational patterns and current conditions of the associated property 

types; 

• Synthesizing the information in a written narrative; and 

• Identifying information needs. 

"Property types" are groupings of individual sites or properties based on common 

physical and associative characteristics. They serve to link the concepts presented in the 

historical contexts with properties illustrating those ideas (NPS 1983:44719). 

A summary of an area's history can be developed by a set of historical contexts. This 

formulation of contexts is a logical first step in the design of any archaeological survey. It is also 

crucial to the evaluation of individual properties in the absence of a comprehensive survey of a 

region (NPS 1983:9). The result is an approach that structures information collection and 

analyses. This approach further ties work tasks to the types and levels of information required to 

identify and evaluate potentially important cultural resources. 

The following research contexts were developed to organize the data relating to the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck: 

• European maritime commerce, transportation, and warfare in the Gulf of Mexico 

prior to 1800; 

• European maritime commerce, transportation, and warfare in the Gulf of Mexico 

during the first half of the nineteenth century; and 

• Vessel types and development of the Gulf of Mexico. 

3.2.2 Historical Research 

There is a recursive relationship between the historic contexts and the material culture of 

an archaeological site. Thus, the formation of the three contexts was influenced by what was 

known about 16GM01 and the contexts were used to interpret the suite as a whole. Analyses of 

the artifacts recovered from 16GM01 suggest that the vessel was a British or American craft 

sunk during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Consequently, the historical research 

focused on the primary and secondary records of merchants operating in the region (New 

Orleans, Mobile, and Pensacola), port records, privateering activities, and hurricanes of the 

period, in an attempt to determine the identity of the ship, the cause of its sinking, and the nature 
18

of maritime trade and commerce in the Gulf of Mexico during the early nineteenth century. 

Primary documents, including Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana (WPA 

1942) and Lloyd’s Register, and period newspapers, including the Orleans Gazette, Alabama 

Watchman, Natchez Gazette, Cahawba Press and Alabama Intelligencer, Mississippi Republic, 

Alabama Courier, Huntsville Gazette, Louisiana Herald, Louisiana Planter, Louisiana Rambler, 

Louisiana Advertiser, Orleans Gazette and Commercial Advertiser, The Louisiana State Gazette, 

Louisianan, and Mississippi Messenger were consulted. Available newspaper editions were 

investigated for the period 1808–1825. Not all newspapers ran or were available for that entire 

period. Table 3.1 summarizes the newspapers examined. Secondary United States and Gulf of 

Mexico maritime history books were also consulted, as were the Louisiana Historical Quarterly

and previously published cultural resource management reports (Coastal Environments, Inc. 

1977; Enright et al. 2006; Garrison et al. 1989a; Pearson et al. 2003). 

Table 3.1 

Newspapers Consulted 

Newspaper State Available Start 

Date Available End Date

Alabama Watchman Alabama 8 August 1820 15 December 1820 

Cahawba Press and Alabama 

Intelligencer Alabama 10 July 1819 30 December 1820 

Alabama Courier Alabama 19 March 1819 15 October 1819 

Huntsville Gazette Alabama 21 December 1816 21 December 1816 

Louisiana Herald Louisiana 20 March 1819 2 December 1820 

Louisiana Planter Louisiana 15 May 1810 15 May 1810 

Louisiana Rambler Louisiana 28 March 1818 11 April 1818 

Louisiana Advertiser Louisiana 19 April 1819 31 December 1825 

Louisiana State Gazette Louisiana 11 November 1825 31 December 1825 

Orleans Gazette Louisiana 28 June 1805 31 December 1819 

Orleans Gazette & Commercial 

Advertiser Louisiana 11 June 1805 5 January 1816 

Louisianian Louisiana 8 May 1819 27 May 1820 

Mississippi Republican Mississippi 26 April 1813 27 April 1818 

Mississippi Messenger Mississippi 6 September 1805 11 August 1808 

Mississippi Herald and Natchez 

Gazette Mississippi 27 May 1806 10 June 1807 

3.3 Deep Water Archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico 

3.3.1 Previous Investigations 

The MMS has sponsored several studies to collect information on cultural resources in 

the Gulf of Mexico region. These studies have been used to help design and guide a remote 

sensing survey program intended to identify cultural resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf. Studies conducted in 1977 (Coastal Environments, Inc.) and 1989 (Garrison 

et al. 1989a) were directed specifically at collecting information on historic shipwreck resources 

in the region. In a 2003 study (Pearson et al.), information on reported and known shipwrecks in 

the Gulf of Mexico region was collected from a variety of sources to expand the information 
19

presented in the 1989 study. The MMS has used the results of these efforts to determine where 

remote-sensing surveys for historic shipwrecks should be required in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Specifically, this information has been used to identify individual 4.8-km-square (3-mi-square) 

lease blocks and groups of lease blocks that have a high probability of containing historic 

shipwrecks and to develop remote-sensing survey strategies for these lease blocks. 

All shipwreck information collected during these studies was incorporated into a 

relational database (Microsoft Access) and a geographic information system (GIS) (ArcView) 

that serves as a tool for MMS personnel engaged in the continued assessment and monitoring of 

shipwreck data in the Gulf. Data on a variety of variables relating to the characteristics of 

vessels and objects were collected for the entries included in the shipwreck database. At present, 

the database contains over 2,900 records of vessels lost in the Gulf of Mexico; however, a review 

of this database failed to identify a possible candidate for 16GM01. 

In addition to these region-wide resources, the actions of treasure salvers provided 

information about Gulf of Mexico seafaring. Three shipwrecks disturbed by salvers bear directly 

on the Mardi Gras site in terms of date and location. The first vessel to be so affected was El 

Nuevo Constante, a Spanish merchant vessel driven into the shallows off what is now Cameron 

Parish, Louisiana in 1766. Discovered in 1979 when a local shrimper recovered copper ingots in 

his nets, the finders began mechanically dredging the site with a clamshell bucket after divers 

located gold and silver ingots. Eventually fearing prosecution for their activities in State waters, 

the salvers informed Louisiana authorities of their find. The State contracted an archaeological 

excavation of the ship in 1980 (Pearson and Hoffman 1995). Ironically, the vessel was not a 

treasure ship, as its finders assumed, but a common merchant vessel laden with a wide range of 

export items from Mexico. 

Another eighteenth-century vessel discovered by fishers in the Gulf of Mexico did not 

fare nearly as well as El Nuevo Constante in terms of the preservation of archaeological data. 

The wreck of El Cazador was found in Federal waters offshore of Grand Isle, Louisiana, in 

approximately 100 m (300 ft) of water in 1993. A Spanish naval vessel, it had been lost in 1784 

carrying some 450,000 pesos of silver reales to New Orleans. The wreck remains were dredged 

off the seafloor with no regard for archaeological context and deposited on the deck of a barge. 

For a brief period, the salvors maintained a roadside attraction known as the “El Cazador 

Museum” in Grand Bay, Alabama, south of Mobile. The current disposition of the “museum” 

and the fate of the artifacts it contained is unknown, but the organization’s web site is now a 

dead link (www.elcazador.com) and the remaining coins recently were purchased by the Franklin 

Mint and were sold on QVC television beginning 17 April 2007. Sadly, had this wreck been 

discovered after passage of the Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 

108-375) it likely would have been afforded sovereign immunity from commercial salvage. 

The third salvaged vessel is, in many ways, nearly identical in its artifact assemblage to 

16GM01 (Sinclair 2002). Dubbed the Piña Colada Wreck by its discoverers, the site was found 

in 4,999 m (16,400 ft) of water in the Atlantic off the east coast of Florida while searching for 

the Liberty Bell 7 space capsule. Some artifacts were removed from the site, including a number 

of utilitarian ceramics that appear to be undecorated creamware, an hourglass, two flintlock 

pistols, two octants, a wooden telescope, a leather boot, 1300 silver coins, and a gold box. The 

site was provided with a firm terminus post quem of 1810 from a newspaper fragment that was 

wrapped around coins found inside the gold box. The artifacts from the Piña Colada Wreck are 
20

in private possession. Their present condition is unknown, but it is uncertain if the collection 

will ever be published or made available for study. 

Scientific investigations carried out on underwater archaeological sites are exceedingly 

rare in the Gulf of Mexico outside of state waters. Only two such investigations have been 

undertaken, both under the auspices of the MMS. The first investigation, completed in 1989, 

was concerned with what initially was presumed to be a shipwreck from the presence of a large 

ballast pile and six iron cannon (Garrison et al. 1989b). The researchers ultimately concluded, 

however, that the site consisted of nothing more than a ballast dump. 

A second investigation conducted for MMS had more relevance for 16GM01. Located 

just 14.4 km (9 mi) to the north of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck in 747 m (2,650 ft) of water, a 

shipwreck of the same approximate size and age as 16GM01 was discovered after a gas pipeline 

inadvertently was laid across it. Dubbed the “Mica Wreck” after the name of the pipeline, a site 

investigation was funded by ExxonMobil to mitigate damages to the site (Atauz et al. 2006). 

The wreck was found to consist of a well-preserved, copper-sheathed lower hull, which was 

strangely devoid of artifacts. The wreck dated to the first half of the nineteenth century, based 

upon the purity of the copper sheathing, which later in the century was alloyed with other metals. 

Failing to find or recover any datable artifact assemblage, the researchers hesitated to speculate 

on a more precise date. Wood samples recovered from the site (which were limited to sacrificial 

exterior planking) suggested that the ship had been built, or at least refitted, in the northeastern 

United States. The recent recovery of a 2-m (6-ft) section of the Mica Wreck sternpost with a 

brass gudgeon attached provided little additional information because the gudgeon was 

unmarked and generic for the period. 

3.3.2 Field Equipment 

As demonstrated by the above discussion, deep-water archaeology is not well-established 

in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, one of the major challenges of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

data recovery was the excavation and recovery of delicate artifacts beyond the limits of direct 

human involvement. In order to fulfill the goals of the plan, a range of specialized equipment 

was tailored for performing tasks under these conditions. The equipment used was a 

combination of off-the-shelf vehicles with tooling adapted from that used in the offshore oil and 

gas industry and specialized tooling specifically engineered for the needs of this project. 

The fieldwork was staged from Toisa Vigilant, a subsea support and platform supply 

vessel managed by Sealion. Toisa Vigilant measures 80.5 m (264 ft) in length with an 18-m (59-

ft) beam. The vessel was stabilized with two passive roll reduction stabilization tanks, and 

dynamic position was maintained by four 610 kilowatt thrusters, two forward and two aft, linked 

to a Kongsberg Simrad SDP21 system. In addition to the ROV winch, Vigilant is outfitted with 

a fixed-boom crane that was used to bring the lifting baskets onto the vessel. 

Veolia Environmental was contracted to provide a Perry Triton XLS-17 ROV for the 

project (Figure 3.1). This ROV was a work-class, 150 horsepower (hp) system with a payload 

capacity of 550 pounds (reserve). The XLS-17 featured a heavy lift tether-management system 

(TMS) and was rated to 2,987 m (9,800 ft). It was fitted with one Shilling seven-function T4 and 

one five-function Rig Master manipulator. The system was completely fiber optic and capable 

of supporting up to eight cameras. The ROV was deployed with sector-scanning sonar, highresolution video cameras, and digital still cameras. TAMU worked closely with Veolia 
21

representatives to design and incorporate specific tooling necessary to complete the 

archaeological objectives. 

Figure 3.1. Triton XLS-17 ROV. Note the five-function manipulator on the right and the seven-function 

manipulator on the left, the suction dredge on the extreme right and the suction pickers in the left 

foreground. 

Special tools used on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck excavation included an excavation 

dredge and screening system, suction pickers, scoops, a rake, and a pneumatic chainsaw. All 

tools were fitted with “T” handles so that they could be gripped and maneuvered by either 

manipulator. The dredge and screening system (Figure 3.2) consisted of a Tritec Excalibur 

hydraulic pump (variable 17 to 30 gallon per minute flow rate) fitted with flexible tubing. The 

pump was configured so that the artifacts dropped out of the system and into the screen prior to 

reaching the impellers. The pump had a variable switch that allowed the ROV operator to 

control the amount of suction and reverse the pump to blow sediment. The screen was 

constructed of 1⁄4-inch (0.6 cm) #9 stainless steel mesh and fitted to the ROV as a backpack. 

With this system, artifacts could only be removed by opening the backpack at the surface. As a 

result, an attempt was made to only dredge in one area at a time with the backpack emptied 

between areas. 
22

Figure 3.2. Excavation dredge pump and screening system. 

The primary tools for artifact recovery were suction pickers, commonly called “sticky 

feet,” of various sizes. The suction pickers consisted of thin aluminum pipe fitted with a soft 

rubber cup. The picker was attached to a pump that provided the suction necessary to hold the 

artifact to the rubber cup. These tools were capable of collecting relatively large artifacts 

(including one of the stoneware jugs) and were the most precise collection tool, recovering only 

the selected artifact and not disturbing the bottom beyond the depression left by the artifact. The 

“bellows”-type suction pickers worked better than those with a simple rubber cup because the 

bellows allowed the picker to form a seal without pressing hard against the artifact. However, all 

of the pickers only worked on clean and relatively flat surfaces, limiting their use for certain 

artifacts. In instances where the suction pickers were inappropriate, a collection of scoops were 

employed. The majority of the scoops were constructed of 1/8-inch (0.3-cm) steel plate and 

ranged from approximately 8 X 12 inches (20.3 X 30.5 cm) to 12 X 24 inches (30.5 X 61 cm) 

inside dimensions. The scoops were useful for picking up a wide variety of artifacts but 

disturbed the bottom sediments in the process and risked impacting yet-uncovered artifacts 

below the selected artifact. In order to partially remedy this situation, expedient tools were 

constructed by the Veolia Environmental staff. Several of these tools were built, but they all 

consisted of approximately five welding rods welded to a piece of 1

/8-inch (0.3-cm) steel plate. 

In general, these tools were only useful for the recovery of a single artifact, after which the tines 

were too bent to be effective. Finally, a pneumatic chainsaw was employed in an attempt to 

recover the weapons chest. 

Regardless of collection method, most artifacts were transferred on the seafloor to 

specially modified milk crates in preparation for lifting (Figure 3.3). The milk crates were wired 

into pairs and fitted with towels to protect the artifacts. A single towel was wired or cable-tied 

across both crates to form a hammock inside the crate. A second towel was then stretched across 

the top of the crates. A slit was cut in each end of the top towel, and the ends of the towel were 
23

folded over to cover the slit. This towel prevented the artifact from surging out of the crate when 

lifted to the surface while allowing easy access by the ROV. Each crate was assigned a unique 

number, which was written on a livestock tag firmly wired to the crate. Two pairs of crates were 

attached to a piece of metal decking with a central handle (Figure 3.4). This four-crate 

arrangement could be lifted directly by the ROV and was employed for sensitive artifacts or 

when the ROV was scheduled to return to the surface after only a short dive. The majority of the 

artifacts, however, were lifted in a specially designed basket (Figure 3.5). This lifting basket 

measured 4 X 8 ft (1.2 X 2.4 m) at the base and was constructed of 1⁄4-inch (0.64cm) steel plating 

with a 4-in (10.2-cm) I-beam frame. 

Figure 3.3. Schematic of modified milk crates (illustration by B. Ford). 

Figure 3.4. Schematic of two pairs of crates attached to a piece of metal decking with a central handle 

(illustration by B. Ford). 
24

Figure 3.5. Lifting basket. 

Figure 3.6. Large Artifact Retrieval Tool (LART). 
25

Large Artifact Retrieval Tools (LARTs) were constructed for the recovery of large 

artifacts and features (Figure 3.6). These tools were used to recover the stern concretion and to 

backfill the site. They were specifically designed for the Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project by Perry 

Slingsby Engineering in Houston and were manufactured under the direction of Veolia 

Environmental Marine Services. The closed LARTs measured 8 X 5 X 7 ft (2.4 X 1.5 X 2.1 m) 

and the blades could be fully extended to 6 ft (1.8 m). The two halves of the LART could be 

closed at a controlled rate by means of hydraulic rams; once closed, the LART served as a 

shipping container for the artifact. Similar equipment for deep-water artifact recovery was 

proposed by Willard Bascom in 1971, but the current LART provided for a more controlled and 

precise recovery than Bascom’s design. 

All artifacts were tracked using Site Recorder 4® and a custom Microsoft Access

relational database. Site Recorder®, developed by 3H Consulting, Ltd., was selected as the main 

software system for recording, registering, and cataloguing artifacts from fieldwork through the 

conservation process. The software purports to be a fully-integrated GIS designed for use in 

maritime archaeology. Ideally, Site Recorder® can manage thousands of artifacts, drawings, 

photographs, video clips, documents, and geophysical data files that can be linked together for 

analysis and interpretation. However, due to initial difficulties establishing geodesy within Site 

Recorder® caused by the program’s lack of support for the NAD27 projection and datum and the 

program’s inability to efficiently display the large image files necessary for a high-resolution 

photomosaic it was deemed necessary to develop the Microsoft Access® database. Both Site 

Recorder® and Access® were operated in parallel to create duplicate and redundant records. 

Unlike archaeological projects on land, every task performed on the seabed during the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck Data Recovery Project was documented on video. For the success of the 

project, it was important to document the artifacts on the seabed with as much resolution as 

possible. Once removed from the seabed, the only information allowing the archaeologist to 

match the artifact to its number (along with the lifting basket information) was the visual file. 

This file took the place of the bag log that generally follows artifacts on terrestrial excavations. 

For this reason, visual documentation was crucial and was provided by high-resolution digital 

still cameras with high-intensity lights coupled to an advanced VideoSoft digital video recording 

system. An Imenco SDS7200 7.3 mega-pixel digital still camera was used for creating 

photomosaics of the site and for shooting detailed photography of artifacts before they were 

removed from the seafloor. This camera was mounted on the Triton XLS-17 for the duration of 

the project. In addition, the project employed a Tritech Typhoon VMS Laser/Camera system. 

This system included five lasers that surround the lens of the camera, all of which are clearly 

visible on a monitor. Software provided with the system allowed any object in the field of view 

to be measured within millimeters. These scales were useful for data processing and for 

understanding the size and relative position of artifacts within the site. It was found, however, 

that the scales were accurate only when they could be projected within the same plane and 

directly onto the artifact, which limited their usefulness for measuring many of the artifacts. 

Also available for photography of artifacts once onboard the research vessel was a Nikon D200 

Professional with software package Camera Control Pro®. 

In addition to photographic recording, UTEC Survey Inc. was contracted to provide 

survey support, including acoustic positioning and geo-referenced video support. Basic 

positioning of the ROV was provided through a Kongberg Ultra short baseline (USBL) system, 

which is typically accurate to 0.5 percent of water depth. This system was used to track the 
26

approximate position of the ROV and its tether management system. Actually positioning on the 

seafloor was provided by a long baseline (LBL) system of five transponders. Unfortunately, one 

of the transponders did not function properly, limiting the usable transponders to four. After 

initial difficulties in obtaining accurate position data, this system provided 30 cm accuracy. In 

addition, UTEC geo-referenced all video within VideoSoft® image capture software. 

3.3.3 Field Methods 

Field operations on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site were conducted between 21 May and 

7 June 2007 and required the combined efforts of archaeologists, federal managers, ROV pilots, 

ship’s crew, deck and hoist crew, and conservators. The project operated on a 24-hour schedule 

with the archaeologists divided into three two-person shifts while the remainder of the staff 

operated on 12-hour or as-needed shifts. Project management and continuity was provided by 

Peter Hitchcock and Dr. Donny Hamilton, who also worked 12-hour shifts. Each archaeological 

shift team included one archaeologist in the ROV container and another on the bridge. The ROV 

container archaeologist provided direct advice to the ROV pilots and guided operations. The 

bridge archaeologist monitored the excavation and recovery progress through a video feed from 

the ROV camera. This archaeologist had access to the combined expertise of the archaeology 

staff and was able to liaise with the positioning and survey staff as well as the archaeologist 

operating the still cameras and the site/artifact recording software. Communications between the 

ROV container and the bridge were maintained at all times through the ship’s radio. 

Prior to reaching the site, the archaeology staff, including MMS personnel, finalized and 

agreed upon a standard operating procedure for artifact recording and recovery. This plan was 

then vetted with the Veolia Environmental ROV and technical staff to verify its feasibility. Final 

set up of the conservation laboratory, computers, and video links was also completed during the 

transit to the site. 

After arriving on site and establishing a station with the ship’s dynamic positioning (DP) 

system, a series of thrusters that allow the vessel to remain essentially motionless, the UTEC 

staff deployed the positioning system. With the help of the ROV, five transponders were 

deployed around the wreck allowing the survey staff to track both the ROV and the relative 

position of the vessel. With accurate positioning achieved, site recording and artifact recovery 

could begin. 

3.3.3.1 Site Survey and Mapping 

The initial archaeological task was a pre-disturbance survey of the site. This task was 

accomplished through the creation of a high-resolution photomosaic. The ROV was flown at an 

altitude of approximately 4 m (13 ft), providing a swath coverage of 4.5 m (14.7 ft) with the 

Imenco still camera. In order to achieve coverage with a 60 percent overlap, transect lines were 

spaced approximately 3 m (10 ft) apart. A coarse mosaic was created shortly after the images 

were collected using the photo-merge function in Adobe® Photoshop®. Because the photomerge function has the capability of stitching the images at the pixel level, it helped to reduce 

camera distortion and parallax. The coarse mosaic was next georeferenced using ground control 

points taken from previously collected data in order to place it in real space. This mosaic served 

as the base map during the excavation. Additional mosaics of specific site areas were developed 

throughout the excavation, ending with a mosaic of the backfilled areas. Both total site and 

specific area mosaics were collected. The specific area mosaics covered designated zones during 
27

excavation and recorded changes to the site without the extra expenditure of time to photograph 

unaffected areas. 

After the completion of the fieldwork, a high-resolution mosaic was constructed using 

approximately 2500 seven-megapixel images. These images were sorted into groups by mosaic 

survey line (each pass of the ROV over the site) and then automatically corrected for parallax 

using ER-Mapper® software. The corrected images were then stitched into lines and modified 

so that the color, saturation, brightness, and contrast of each image were balanced for that line. 

The next step was to establish a georeferenced framework to which the mosaic lines could be 

attached. This task was accomplished by importing the UTEC field survey points for major 

artifacts (e.g. stove, concretion, cannon, compass) into ESRI ArcGIS®. These locations were 

then verified by overlaying the sector-scanning sonar images and C&C Technologies multibeam 

sonar data over them to verify correspondence. Next the ROV flight paths were imported into 

ESRI ArcGIS® for the purpose of checking site geometry in relation to the surveyed artifacts. 

This process also served to filter out any anomalies or noise caused by individual points far 

outside the site boundaries. A polygon of each large artifact (cannon, stove, gun box) was then 

created based on the sonar, multi-beam, and archaeological data, and these polygons were 

imported into ER-Mapper® to define the geographical boundaries of the mosaiced artifacts. The 

positions were again checked by importing the ROV flight paths into ER-Mapper® and checking 

the artifact position against the ROV position when each picture in the artifact mosaic was taken. 

The imported artifact frames were then used to position the mosaic lines within ER-Mapper®. 

Thus, the mosaic lines that had initially been created in ER-Mapper® without a coordinate 

system were assigned geographic positions and orientations. This process was repeated until a 

full mosaic of the site was created. The mosaic was then saved at full resolution as a .tiff file. 

The final step in the mosaic process involved bringing the .tiff into Photoshop® CS2 and 

balancing the colors between individual lines in order to make the image more aesthetically 

pleasing and easier to interpret. 

Figure 3.7. Site plan with sections delineated (illustration by B. Ford). 

These large mosaics were time-consuming to create and required an enormous amount of 

computer processing power to manipulate. As a result, the coarse mosaic was loaded into Site 

Recorder® and used as a base map. Based on this mosaic and natural divisions in the hull 
28

structure and artifact distribution, the site was divided into six sections, numbered 1–6 from stern 

to stem (Figure 3.7). The divisions helped structure the excavation and artifact recovery and 

were used to assign artifact numbers. Each artifact was assigned a three digit unique identifier. 

The first digit of this key was the section from which the artifact was recovered, while the second 

two digits were assigned sequentially. If an artifact, such as a concretion, resulted in more than 

one artifact, these artifacts were given lot numbers assigned sequentially and separated from the 

primary number by a hyphen. These numbers, in addition to the material and functional class of 

each artifact and a photograph, were entered into both Site Recorder® and the Access® database. 

The Access® database also included location data for each artifact. 

3.3.3.2 Artifact Recovery 

With the ability to identify, record, and track artifacts established, archaeological recovery 

began. Initially, exposed small/fragile artifacts were recovered through the use of the suction 

picker and various scoops. The extraction of these items exposed portions of underlying artifact 

materials. Careful manipulation of the suction dredge removed extraneous sediment from the 

newly exposed objects so that these items could more easily be recorded and excavated from the 

site with the ROV tools. An effort was made to remove all exposed, portable objects from the 

focus area; when this objective was reached artifact recovery was redirected to a new location. 

The removal of each artifact was a unique challenge, specific to the properties and fragility of the 

item. The best possible method was employed for each specific object, though the general 

procedure was as follows. 

• The target artifact was selected through an agreement between the archaeologists in both 

the ROV container and the bridge. 

• The ROV with specific numbered crate containers were piloted to the vicinity of the 

artifact under the direction of the ROV-based archaeologist. The ROV was positioned 

and landed. Stirred up suspended sediment was allowed to disperse before proceeding. 

• A specific number was assigned to the object. 

• The target artifact was photographed in situ with the Typhoon Camera both with and 

without the laser measuring system. 

• The artifact was extracted using the tool best suited for the object in order to minimize 

impact to the artifact and disturbance to the adjacent area and to afford an efficient 

recovery. 

• The object was deposited in a numbered crate, insuring it was covered by the protective 

towel. The number of the crate was recorded by archaeologists in the ROV container and 

bridge and added to the digital record. 

Each crate was assigned one individual artifact and, once a pair of crates was filled, they 

were piloted to an area near the lifting basket. The process was repeated until a sufficient number 

of crates were ready to be lifted to the surface. The crates were then carefully stacked inside the 

lifting basket and the basket lid closed and pinned shut. The basket remained on the seafloor 

until a window of sufficiently calm weather was available to safely bring the artifacts aboard the 

vessel. The decision to raise the basket was made by the archaeologists and Veolia ES support 

staff. In order to raise the large artifact basket, the ROV attached the main winch wire to the 

basket for the lift, and then followed the basket during the lift to monitor its progress. Once the 
29

basket ascended to 200 ft (61 m) below the research vessel, the ROV attached the crane’s line to 

the basket and removed the main winch wire, allowing the basket to be brought up and over the 

side of the hull. 

The artifact crates were then carefully removed from the basket and kept wet while the 

conservation staff checked the artifacts and crates against the artifact log. Once the identity and 

provenience of each artifact was verified, it was removed from the crate and tagged with the 

unique number assigned to it prior to recovery. The tags were made of plastic sign material and 

attached with monofilament line. Artifacts were then deposited in large galvanized steel tanks 

for temporary storage. During daylight hours following the artifact recovery, the conservation 

staff recorded each artifact with a sketch, measurements, brief description, and photograph. All 

of this information, including the photograph, was printed on a conservation record card that 

followed the artifact throughout the cruise and into the conservation laboratory. The artifacts 

were then wrapped in wet towels and plastic wrap before being placed in plastic (Sterilite® and 

Tupperware®) bins and returned to the galvanized steel tank for storage during the remainder of 

the cruise. The plastic wrap was perforated to allow free movement of water past the artifact 

and, along with the towels, served to keep the artifact wet. The plastic bins helped protect the 

artifacts from damage and also held water. All water used in this process was seawater from the 

vessel’s deck faucet. 

While the above process worked well for small and medium sized artifacts, it was not 

appropriate for large artifacts, specifically the cannon, stove, stern (southeast) concretion, and 

weapons chest. Each of these artifacts was approached differently. While these artifacts account 

for many of the large artifacts on the site, it should be noted that an anchor, concretion along the 

starboard (east) side of the wreck, and exposed hull remains were left in situ. 

The cannon was removed directly from the bottom in a single lift. The excavation dredge 

was reversed to blow the sediment from underneath the cannon. This process took advantage of 

the cannon’s situation to create two passages beneath the gun. Lifting straps were passed 

through these holes and attached to the ship’s winch. The winch cable was then slowly taken in 

until the cannon separated from the wreck and could be brought to the surface. The ROV 

tracked the cannon on its ascent, monitoring it for any signs of deterioration and to switch the 

cannon from the winch to crane cable at an appropriate depth. Once on deck, the cannon was 

placed on two shipping pallets padded with blankets. The gun was then documented and 

wrapped with wet blankets and plastic sheeting before being enclosed in a LART. The LART 

served as a shipping container, providing good protection and an easy lift point. The cannon was 

wetted several times per day prior to shipping. 

The stove was more difficult to recover than the cannon due to its advanced state of 

deterioration. While the cast iron cannon was relatively solid, the thin cast iron plates of the 

stove contained very little sound metal. In an effort to recover the stove intact, it was placed in a 

cargo net using one of the pieces of lead sheathing found with the stove as a stretcher to support 

the stove’s weight. Portions of the stove were lost on the seafloor as it was transported to the 

cargo net. Once gathered in the net, the stove and recovered pieces were deposited inside the 

lifting basket. Unfortunately, the stove did not sit properly in the basket and was forced to ride at 

an angle, not resting solidly on a flat surface. As a result of this handling, its poor state of 

preservation, and pressure from the sediments trapped inside, the stove arrived at the surface in 

several pieces. The majority of these breaks were along fabrication joints and the pieces have 
30

been successfully reconstructed and cast by the Conservation Research Laboratory. The 

fragments were tagged and individually wrapped for reassembly at the conservation laboratory. 

The stern concretion was recovered with a LART. After clearing the small artifacts from 

the vicinity, it was decided that the LART was an appropriate method to collect the concretion 

because of its size and irregular shape. The shape of the concretion did not lend itself to 

strapping like the cannon and its size precluded direct manipulation by the ROV similar to the 

stove. The LART was deployed to the seafloor, where the ROV positioned it over the artifact 

and established the hydraulic connection with the rams. The LART was lowered into the 

sediment in an open position, using its weight to reach a sufficient depth to safely enclose the 

concretion. The LART was then slowly closed. Next the LART was raised in a similar manner 

to the lifting basket and deposited on the vessel’s deck. The inside top of the LART was lined 

with plastic sheeting, and the concretion and trapped sediments were wetted several times a day. 

The artifacts remained in the LART until they were removed at the Conservation Research 

Laboratory (CRL) in College Station, Texas. 

The final large artifact for which removal was attempted was the weapons chest. The 

weapons chest had the greatest relief on the site and had the potential to contain a significant 

amount of information about the shipwreck. As a result, an intensive effort was made to recover 

the chest. The area surrounding the chest was initially excavated in an attempt to free the chest 

from the wreck. However, it was found to be extremely friable and firmly attached to the hull 

remains, possibly as a result of iron corrosion. It was therefore decided that a direct lift similar 

to that employed with the cannon would likely damage the chest and the use of a LART would 

cause an unknown but extensive amount of harm to the hull. After consultation with the MMS 

and Veolia Environmental staffs, it was decided to cut the hull timbers adjacent to the chest in 

order to free it. Over the next several hours, several frames and planks were cut on the aft 

(southeast) side of the chest. However, it was difficult to saw the forward side of the chest due 

to the starboard concretion. Again, after consultation, it was decided to leave the chest in place. 

The weapons chest and other artifacts and features that were left in place were 

extensively photo-documented with both video and still photography. The video camera was 

used to record the artifacts and features at various angles to capture their details and settings in 

an easily-reconstructed format. The video camera was also used while the ROV hovered so that 

archaeologists could carefully study the cultural remains. The Tritech Typhoon VMS 

Laser/Camera system was also used to photograph the artifacts and features left in situ. In 

several instances, the dredge pump was reversed to remove loose sediment from the artifacts 

without disturbing them. These photographs complete the cultural resource inventory of the 

wreck. 

3.3.3.3 Sample Collection 

In addition to the artifacts and photographs collected at the site, several samples were 

also gathered, including sediment, water, wood, and pollen. Two sediment samples were 

collected with push cores (1 m x 7 cm diameter [3.28 ft x 2.75 in]) for the purpose of 

determining sediment type and basic properties. One sample was collected outside the site 

boundaries as a control, while the other was taken from within the hull between the artifact 

clusters of Area 1 and Area 2 (see figure 3.7). The ROV also triggered two Mason bottle watersampling devices mounted on the artifact basket to determine water chemistry. One sample was 

collected in the water column adjacent to the site and another directly above the shipwreck. All 
31

water and sediment analyses were conducted at TAMU, Department of Oceanography. These 

samples and data were processed to determine site formation processes and conservation 

condition of the artifacts and also for acquiring a better understanding of the physical and 

chemical properties of archaeological shipwreck sites in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Wood samples were collected from the spar, frames, and planking recovered with the 

stern concretion. These samples were representative of the major identifiable hull components. 

Preliminary wood analysis for speciation was completed at TAMU, Department of Forest 

Sciences. The focus of this analysis was to determine likely locations where the vessel was 

constructed. Samples were also submitted to the Tree Ring Laboratory at Cornell University for 

dendro-chronological analysis. 

Pollen samples were taken from the collected sediment samples as well as from the 

interiors of the intact bottles and sand-glasses. The Palynology Laboratory at TAMU, under the 

direction of Dr. Vaughn Bryant, carried out the pollen analysis. This laboratory is familiar with 

botanical remains from underwater sites and deep shipwrecks, as well as with Texas and 

American Southwest botanical species and pollen. The Mardi Gras Shipwreck site has a great 

advantage in terms of its physical location some 64 km (40 mi) offshore for conducting pollen 

analysis. This distance limits the amount of contamination from botanical elements transported 

to the underwater site by rivers, currents, and winds. Pollen present on the site is therefore likely 

to be directly associated with the shipwreck and possibly its cargo. 

The final activity on site was to backfill the depressions made by excavation and artifact 

removal. The LART was used as a large hopper to transport sediments from offsite. All fill was 

collected from approximately 250 m away, well beyond the bounds of the shipwreck and its 

debris field, and gently deposited across the site. Backfilling required three LART loads and 

substantially reduced the visibility of the site to sector-scanning sonar (Figure 3.8). 

Figure 3.8. Sector-scanning sonar image of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site after backfilling (each concentric 

ring is a 15-ft (4.6-m) division). 
32

Raised artifacts were repackaged in wet towels, foam padding, and plastic wrap prior to 

arriving at the dock in Port Fuchon. This packaging served to protect the artifacts and ensure 

that they remained damp during transportation. With the exception of the stern concretion and 

cannon, which were contained in LARTs, all of the artifacts were then placed in plastic 

(Sterilite® and Tupperware®) boxes and firmly packed to reduce movement. The plastic boxes 

were subsequently placed in galvanized steel tanks and loaded into a shipping container. The 

container was transported by flat-bed truck to the Conservation Research Laboratory (CRL) 

within 24 hours of docking the vessel. Once at the CRL the artifacts were removed from the 

container and placed in wet storage to await conservation. 

3.4 Artifact Conservation 

The Conservation Research Laboratory (CRL), under the direction of Dr. Donny 

Hamilton, conducted all conservation of recovered material. This is an ongoing process that will 

not be completed until approximately 2009; the methods discussed here reflect only the work 

completed to date. Arrangements have been made between TAMU, the CRL, and the Louisiana 

Division of Archaeology for the delivery of completed artifacts. 

The CRL has been in operation for over 25 years, operates year-round and has conserved 

hundreds of thousands of artifacts of all materials and composite classes. All work conducted at 

the CRL follows the philosophy: 

“Regardless of an artifact's condition or value, its aesthetic, historic, 

archaeological, and physical integrity should be preserved. After conservation, an 

object should retain as many diagnostic attributes as possible. The preservation of 

the diagnostic attributes of the object being conserved is of utmost importance in 

selecting a conservation treatment.” (Hamilton 1999) 

What follows are basic steps for artifact conservation followed by the CRL. In general, 

pottery, such as the creamware and stoneware from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site, survives well 

in marine environments and requires only minimal treatment after recovery (Pearson 1987). 

Earthenware excavated from marine sites becomes saturated with soluble salts, and/or the 

surfaces often become covered with insoluble salts, such as calcium carbonate and calcium 

sulfate. Soluble salts (chlorides, phosphates, and nitrates) are potentially most dangerous to the 

integrity of pottery, and they must be removed in order for the object to be stable. The soluble 

salts are hygroscopic, and as the relative humidity rises and falls, the salts repeatedly dissolve 

and crystallize. These salts eventually reach the surface of the ceramic, where extensive 

crystallization takes place causing exfoliation of the surface of the ceramic. Eventually, the 

vessel will break as a result of internal stresses. At times, masses of needle-like crystals may 

cover the surface, hiding all details. 

Iron stains on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck ceramics were removed with a 2 percent 

hydrogen peroxide solution applied locally with swabs and the artifacts were mechanically 

cleaned. Soluble salts were then removed by repeated rinsing in tap water followed by several 

rinses of deionized (DI) water. The rinses continued until a stable, low chloride level was 

achieved. Chloride levels were checked with weekly mercuric nitrate tests. Insoluble salts, 

conversely, were removed by hand, using wet-scraping with a scalpel or dental tool. Physical 

cleaning was conducted as necessary using a soft brush. Following the final deionized water 

bath, the ceramics were submerged in successive baths of 75% DI water/25% ethanol, 50% DI 
33

water/50% ethanol, 25% DI water/75% ethanol, 100% ethanol, 75% ethanol/25% acetone, 50% 

ethanol/50% acetone, 25% ethanol/75% acetone, 100% acetone. The purpose of this treatment 

was to slowly dehydrate the artifact. The final acetone bath was conducted under a slight 

vacuum. The ceramics were then consolidated with a dilute solution of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) 

V15 in acetone under the same vacuum. The artifacts were kept in the PVA solution until 

bubbling ceased before being removed and allowed to dry. Any repairs necessary were made 

with a Paraloid B-72 glue. Excess glue was wiped away with a solvent-wetted rag. 

Glass, similar to pottery, requires very little conservation but often benefits from 

consolidation that forms an optical bridge between the devitrified layers of the glass. For this 

reason, glass is often treated with silicone oil at the CRL. All glass artifacts were initially 

mechanically cleaned and rinsed with tap and deionized water until stable and low levels of 

chlorides were achieved. The glass was then dehydrated in successive baths similar to the 

ceramics before being immersed in a solution of PR10 polymer and methoxysilane/methanol 

(MTM) crosslinker under a slight vacuum. The glass was then cleaned to remove the excess 

polymer solution before being placed in a closed container and exposed to dibutyltin-diacetate 

(DBTDA) vapors, which catalyze the reaction. Following this treatment, the artifact was 

mechanically cleaned to remove any extraneous polymer or materials. Any mending necessary 

was completed with Cyanoacrolite (super glue), as traditional conservation adhesives do not 

adhere to silicone oil-treated artifacts, and this glue can be separated at the glue interface, 

making it reversible. 

Ferrous archaeological materials from marine sites are among the most difficult to 

conserve because, from the moment of manufacture, the various metals and their alloys, except 

for gold, react with their environment and begin a corrosion process that converts them to more 

stable compounds. Corrosion of iron can occur electrochemically or anaerobically. In 

electrochemical corrosion, a galvanic cell is created when two different metals, or different areas 

on the same metal, are coupled by means of an electrical or ion-conducting electrolyte. The 

result is an electrochemical reaction. In essence, electrochemical corrosion is reserved for those 

processes where a current flows between anodic and cathodic areas situated at different parts of a 

metallic surface or between two different metals of the same or different material. The 

electrochemical oxidation of iron results in the formation of ferrous ions as the initial product. 

The large mass of different metals associated with a sunken ship in salt water may consist of 

thousands of independent galvanic cells, each formed between two metals that have different 

electrode potentials. Furthermore, any metallic surface is almost certain to contain inclusions of 

more noble metals; it is very rare that a metal is 100 percent 'pure.' For this reason, a metal need 

not be in contact with a more noble metal to corrode in sea water. 

Depending on the environment, the corrosion products can take on a variety of states of 

division and hydration, as well as a variety of physical forms. It is common to find corroded iron 

from marine sites with an outer layer of hydrated ferric hydroxide (common rust), which has 

restricted the supply of oxygen to the ferrous hydroxide briefly formed at the surface of the 

metal. Laminated corrosion layers consisting of an inner layer of black magnetite, a thin layer of 

hydrated magnetite, and an outer layer of hydrated ferric hydroxide are formed. 

As metals corrode in salt water, there are localized changes in the pH, which upset the 

equilibrium between the dissolved calcium carbonate and dissolved carbon dioxide in the sea 

water (Leigh 1973:205). This results in insoluble precipitates of calcium carbonate and 

magnesium hydroxide. These precipitates intermix with sand, marine life, and corrosion 
34

products (especially ferrous hydroxide, ferrous sulfide, and magnetite) to form a hard dense layer 

of encrustation or concretion around the metal. This form of encrustation is most evident at the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck in the stern concretion. The encrustation accumulates on the original 

metal surface to form a perfect mold around the object; furthermore, it will actually separate two 

metal pieces that were initially touching each other. Such encrustation effectively separates the 

metals from each other and destroys the electrochemical cell by cutting off the current flow 

and/or oxygen supply. It is rare, in fact, to find any two metal objects recovered from a 

shipwreck in direct contact with each other. 

Despite the fact that the corrosion processes are impeded by the anaerobic environment 

that accompanies the formation of encrustation, metal deterioration can continue due to the 

presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria. These bacteria play a large part in the corrosion of metals, 

especially iron in salt water. They also adversely affect metals in fresh water, as well as metals 

buried in the soil under anaerobic conditions (Evans 1963:224; Pearson 1972:35; Leigh 

1973:205). For instance, sulfate-reducing bacterial activity accounts for most of the rapid 

corrosion of buried iron and steel pipelines in waterlogged clay soils in England (Farrer et al. 

1953:80). As much as 60 percent of the corrosion of iron in salt water can be attributed to 

bacterial action (Pearson 1972a:35). 

The basic conservation process applied to the iron artifacts recovered from the Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck began with mechanical cleaning followed by electrolytic reduction. Electrolytic 

reduction helps to clean the artifact through the evolution of hydrogen bubbles from the metal 

surface. These bubbles flake off and remove iron corrosion products, leaving the sound metal. 

Electrolytic reduction also removes chlorides and, in some cases, can reduce the corrosion state 

to a more stable metal. Electrolytic reduction was continued until the artifacts were clean and a 

low chloride level was obtained. Chloride levels were checked using a mercuric nitrate test. 

Additional mechanical cleaning was conducted as necessary. Following the cleaning, the iron 

artifacts were boiled for three days in deionized water, and the chloride levels were checked 

daily. While still hot from the boiling rinse, the artifacts were next given three coats of tannic 

acid. Tannic acid forms a rind on iron and helps prevent further corrosion while giving the 

artifact a pleasing purple-black color. The artifacts were then sealed with microcrystalline wax. 

The artifacts were submerged in a bath of wax heated to 325o

 F (163o C), and then the bath was 

allowed to cool to 180o F (82o C) before the artifacts were removed. This bath had the additional 

benefit of driving any excess moisture out of the artifacts. Large artifacts, such as the cannon, 

were treated with Krylon 1301 after they were treated with tannic acid. Krylon provides a 

moisture barrier similar to wax but is more efficient to apply to large artifacts. 

Delicate iron artifacts, such as the stove, were treated with sodium sulfite (North and 

Pearson 1975). The artifacts were immersed in a 0.5 molar solution of sodium sulfite dissolved 

in deionized water. The artifacts and solution were sealed and heated to 1400

 F (600 C) for 

several days. This treatment was repeated five times. The artifacts were then mechanically 

cleaned and treated with tannic acid and microcrystalline wax as described above. In the case of 

the stove, detailed casts were made after mechanical cleaning but prior to any chemical 

treatment. The mold was made using RTV110, which is a silicone adhesive sealant that provides 

very good detail. The silicone was backed with fiberglass for strength and casts were made with 

epoxy resin. 

The interiors of concretions were also cast. In many cases, iron artifacts deteriorate to the 

point that there is no sound metal remaining, but their former surface is often preserved in the 
35

surrounding concretion. Following several water baths to remove chlorides, the concretion was 

x-rayed to determine the nature and arrangements of the voids. These voids were then cleaned 

with air-scribes and dental tools. The concretion was then cast with a two-part Hysol epoxy 

resin in order to create a reproduction of the corroded artifact. Delicate artifacts, such as the 

coins, were also cast prior to conservation in order to preserve their information in case they 

were damaged during conservation. 

The term 'cupreous' is used to designate all metals that consist of copper or alloys that are 

predominantly copper, such as bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) and brass (an alloy of copper, 

zinc, and often lead). The cupreous metals are relatively noble metals that frequently survive 

adverse conditions, including long submersions in salt water that will often completely oxidize 

iron. Cupreous metals react with the environment to form similar alteration products, such as 

cuprous chloride (CuCl), cupric chloride (CuCl2), cuprous oxide (Cu2O), and the aesthetically 

pleasing green-and-blue-colored cupric carbonates, malachite [Cu2(OH)2CO3], and azurite 

[Cu3(OH)2(CO3)2] (Gettens 1964:550-557). In a marine environment, the two most commonly 

encountered copper corrosion products are cuprous chloride and cuprous sulfide. The mineral 

alterations in copper alloys, however, can be more complex than those of pure copper. 

Cupreous artifacts were treated similarly to iron artifacts, undergoing electrolytic 

reduction followed by three boiling rinses. They were then polished with bicarbonate paste and 

fiberglass to improve their surface appearance. Next, they were immersed in a 2 percent solution 

of benzotriozole (BTA) to inhibit future corrosion before being sprayed with several coats of 

Krylon 1301. 

In all wood, bacterial action causes a degradation of cell wall components after long 

periods in marine environments. In general, water-soluble substances, such as starch and sugar, 

are the first to be leached from waterlogged wood, along with mineral salts, coloring agents, 

tanning matters, and other bonding materials. In time, through hydrolysis, cellulose in the cell 

walls disintegrates, leaving only a lignin network to support the wood. Even the lignin will 

break down over a long period of time. As a result of the disintegration of cellulose and lignin, 

spaces between the cells and molecules increase, and the wood becomes more porous and 

permeable to water. All of the deteriorated elements of the wood, including all cell cavities and 

intermolecular spaces, are filled with water. The remaining lignin structure of wood cells and 

the absorbed water preserves the shape of the wood. The loss of the finer cellulose tissue does 

not cause much alteration in the gross volume of wood, but the porosity is increased, and the 

wood absorbs water like a sponge. A waterlogged wooden object will retain its shape as long as 

it is kept wet. If the wood is exposed to air, the excess water evaporates, and the resulting 

surface tension forces of the evaporating water cause the weakened cell walls to collapse, 

creating considerable shrinkage and distortion. 

The majority of the wooden artifacts from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, including 

recovered portions of the gun carriage, were treated using the silicone oil treatment. The 

artifacts were initially mechanically cleaned and rinsed with tap and deionized water until stable 

and low levels of chlorides were achieved. The wood was then dehydrated in successive baths 

similar to those of the ceramics before being immersed in a solution of SFD-1 polymer and 

MTM crosslinker. The wood was then cleaned to remove the excess polymer solution before 

being placed in a closed container and exposed to DBTDA vapors. Following this treatment, the 

artifacts were mechanically cleaned to remove any extraneous polymer or materials. Large 

pieces of wood, including the spar recovered from the LART, were treated with polyethylene 
36

glycol (PEG). In this method, the artifact was placed in a container with a dilute solution of 

PEG. The solution was warmed and the concentration of PEG increased until it reached 70–100 

percent. Following treatment the artifact was cleaned of excess PEG and allowed to slowly dry. 

The conservation of artifacts from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck is ongoing and will not be 

completed until approximately 2009. As a result, additions will be made to the basic 

methodology described here. All artifacts will be delivered to their final repository with a 

detailed conservation record. Conservation has not yet begun on several of the composite 

artifacts. Due to the composite nature of certain artifacts, the conservation treatment will be 

uniquely designed for that object; its condition will determine the process. All composite 

artifacts will be x-rayed and digitally photographed, and a strategy will be determined before any 

treatment is even considered. 

Artifact analysis took place throughout the conservation process and was based on 

ongoing discussions between the conservators and the archaeologists. Historic cultural materials 

were cataloged according to material (e.g., ceramic, glass, iron, copper alloy) and functional 

(e.g., plate, bowl, bottle) categories. Temporally sensitive historic artifacts, such as ceramics, 

were also identified in terms of type (e.g., creamware, stoneware) when possible. In addition, 

ceramic sherds and bottle glass were examined for distinguishing attributes that provide more 

precise date ranges of manufacture and use. These included maker’s marks, decorative patterns, 

and embossed or raised lettering. Dating of historic archaeological resources was performed 

using published indices such as Deagan (1987), Hume (1991), Jones and Sullivan 1989, Miller 

(1980, 1991), Miller and Hurry (1983), and South (1977), and artifacts recovered from Gulf 

Coast sites of the similar period (e.g. Bense 1988, 1999; Johnson 1999; Waselkov and Sylvia 

1995; Waselkov and Gums 2000; and Yakubik and Franks 1997). The goal of the artifact 

analysis was to determine the origins, economic status, spatial arrangement, and possibly 

destination of the ship and its crew. 

3.5 Analysis of Vessel Components 

The exposed portions of the hull were systematically photographed while in the field and 

a small portion of the hull was recovered attached to the stern concretion. Based on this 

evidence, a necessarily tentative identification of the ship type could be postulated. The size of 

the structural elements, location of ship features, and distribution of artifacts suggested the size 

and construction of the vessel. There was less evidence of the vessel rigging and spars, but 

indirect evidence, such as the location of the stove and a single deadeye, were suggestive. Based 

on this evidence, the vessel could not be reconstructed, but ships of a similar model were 

suggested based on information gleaned from research in contemporary newspapers and a 

comparison with secondary sources (e.g. Chapelle 1935; Gardiner 1995; Lavery 1987 

MacGregor 1984a, 1984b, 1988). 

3.6 Curation of Artifacts and Records 

The conservation of artifacts from 16GM01 will require an estimated three yearstreatment time. As artifacts are completed, TAMU will arrange for their transportation to the 

curation facility under the direction of the MMS, Gulf of Mexico Region. Conserved material 

and project documentation will be curated at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, 

and Tourism, Division of Archaeology, a federally-recognized curational facility. All items sent 

to the repository will adhere to their guidelines (Louisiana Division of Archaeology 2007). 
37

Selected artifacts will then be distributed to the Louisiana State Museum for display at a facility 

yet to be designated. 

An important component of the project is the education outreach program. Three 

elements were proposed to accomplish this task: video documentary, development and 

maintenance of a project web page, and publication of a small booklet to present the results of 

the project. These products are separate from this report and will be completed on a schedule 

negotiated between TAMU, OGGC, and MMS. The video documentation was conducted during 

the archaeological fieldwork. The final documentary video of the project will be available for 

education purposes and may be incorporated with ship artifacts as part of a permanent display at 

the Louisiana State Museum. A web page for the project, developed and maintained by the 

Florida Public Archaeology Network in conjunction with MMS 

(www.flpublicarchaeology.org/mardigras/), was updated regularly during the field activities and 

updates are now available through the CMAC website (nautarch.tamu.edu/mardigras/). The 

results of the archaeological data recovery will also be posted on the internet at appropriate 

times. Subsequent to the fieldwork and presentation of the final report, the web-page will 

continue to be accessible to researchers, students, and other interested parties. The final report 

will be made available as a downloadable .pdf file. A small booklet or pamphlet will be 

published summarizing the accomplishments of the project that may be used in conjunction with 

interpretive exhibits. 
38
39

4.0 Historical Context 

By Amy Borgens with contributions by Ben Ford 

Much as it is today, the Gulf of Mexico was far from isolated from international events 

throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was one of the last theaters for major 

European territorial exchanges in the New World. The American and French Revolutions would 

ignite ideals of self-determination, leading Gulf and Latin American territories to permanently 

reject European sovereignties. Its international character created diversity in commerce but also 

inspired maritime conflicts and privateering influenced by the constant changes in alliances and 

political tenor. 

4.1 Early European Exploration 

The competition for territorial dominance in the Gulf was, in part, an extension of an ageold rivalry between Spain and France. Expeditions to Hispaniola and the Antilles by Christopher 

Columbus at the end of fifteenth century would signify the first Spanish exploration of the New 

World. Columbus would not explore the mainland until landing on the Central American coast 

in 1502. 

The European presence in the Gulf of Mexico was first realized by the Spanish 

explorations of Juan Ponce de León, Alonso Álvarez de Piñeda, and Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de 

Vaca in the early sixteenth century. Ponce de León “discovered” Florida in 1513, formally 

introducing the Spanish presence in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Chipman 1992:23). Piñeda 

was commissioned by Francisco de Garay, the governor of Jamaica, to explore between Mexico 

and Florida for a supposed water route to Asia. This expedition, which left Jamaica in 1519, 

touched at Veracruz and was the first to chart the Texas coast. Cabeza de Vaca was second in 

command of an expedition led in 1527 by Pánfilo de Narváez to create a settlement in Mexico. 

In 1528, Cabeza de Vaca reached northwest Florida, led an expedition into the interior and 

established a camp where they resided for three months. After departing Florida, Cabeza de 

Vaca’s vessels were separated from the expedition during a storm and swept ashore, likely at San 

Luis Island or Follet’s Island, just west of Galveston (Favata and Fernández, 1993; Campbell 

2003:28; Weddle 1992:99). 

Cabeza de Vaca’s account of his voyage was used, in turn, as the basis for subsequent 

explorations of the Gulf region by the likes of Hernando de Soto, in 1539, and Luis de Moscoso 

Alvarado in 1542. Following De Soto’s death in May 1542, Luis de Moscoso Alvardo continued 

exploration of the Louisiana and Texas coast (Chipman 1992:39–40). In 1559, Don Tristán de 

Luna y Arellano established the first settlement at Pensacola, although environmental catastrophe 

and Indian attack would lead to its abandonment in 1561. By that time, Spain was facing 

increasing difficulties in maintaining its few colonies in Florida. The relatively poor economic 

prospects for these colonies and increasing competition from other colonial powers quelled the 

Spanish crown’s interest in further colonization efforts. By the late seventeenth century, the 

threat of French exploration in Spanish territory was exemplified by the establishment of Fort 

Saint Louis by René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle at Matagorda Bay in 1685. La Salle, in 

1653, had navigated the length of the Mississippi River and his misplaced settlement at 

Matagorda Bay was part of a plan to create the colony of Louisiana at the mouth of the 
40

Mississippi (Parry 1959:131). This event provided the Spanish government with an impetus to 

establish permanent settlements in the area (Weddle 1992:105). 

In response to the French incursion into Spanish territory, Spain initiated an exhaustive 

exploration of the Texas coast. Over the next three years, five expeditions by sea and six by land 

would be conducted in the search for La Salle’s settlement (Weddle 1992:101). Remnants of La 

Salle’s vessel la Belle would finally be discovered on 3 April 1687, by captains Martín de Rivas 

and Pedro de Iriarte, commanding two piraguas. The Spanish captains departed on 10 April 

though they had not located La Salle’s settlement (Weddle 1992:103). Despite additional 

searches of the bay by Martín de Rivas and Andrés de Pez in 1688, La Salle’s camp would 

continue to go undiscovered until the Alonso de León expedition of 1689 (Dunn 1916:367–369). 

French exploration of the Americas in the late seventeenth century was encouraged by 

the policies of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the French Minister of Finance (1665–1683). After his 

death in 1683, there was a period of stagnation, but exploration and colonization of the Gulf 

Coast was revitalized in the early eighteenth century with the establishment of two major 

settlements in French Louisiana (Parry 1959:131). In 1702, Mobile was founded and a 

permanent settlement was created at New Orleans in 1718, although the colony was ceded to 

Spain in 1763. 

4.2 European and American Trade Routes 

As the preceding discussion illustrates, prior to the late seventeenth century, Europeans 

viewed the Gulf of Mexico primarily as an exploitation thoroughfare and gave little attention to 

the lands that bordered these waters. Materials extracted from the interior were funneled onto 

ships at a few nodes, and from these nodes the ships sailed out into the deep water of the Gulf in 

order to avoid the treacherous and poorly understood coastline (Figure 4.1). During the sixteenth 

century, Spain formalized trade routes in the Gulf based on these principles by establishing 

treasure fleets or flota. These guarded fleets of large vessels benefited from Spanish 

bureaucracy, developments in ship construction allowing larger and better-armed vessels, and the 

exploration of Ponce de Leon through the Straits of Florida (1519) (Garrison et al. 1989a; LugoFernández et al. 2007; Mendelssohn 1976). Most of this early navigation in the Gulf followed 

the Loop Current and prevailing winds, although the exact causes and seasonality of these winds 

were not always comprehended (Lugo-Fernández et al. 2007; Salvador 1991b:2). Outbound 

voyages from Veracruz generally departed between February and August, with the majority 

sailing in June, by sailing either northeast or north-northeast depending on the prevailing winds 

until they reached between 25° and 26° north latitude and turning to the east. From there, the 

fleets sailed across much of the Gulf of Mexico, keeping to deep water and then turning 

southeast to reach Havana. At Havana, the fleets reassembled before sailing through the Straits 

of Florida and then onto the Azores and Spain. Ships entering the Gulf during the Spanish 

Period generally came in through the Yucatan Channel and sailed directly to Veracruz. 

Descriptions of these routes from a latter period are presented by Hutchins (1784) for the 

Louisiana coast and Romans (1775) for the Yucatan Channel (Garrison et al 1989b). In all of 

these routes, seasonal variability in winds and currents resulting from local fluctuations caused 

the actual route taken to vary throughout the year and from year to year. As a result, the Spanish 

routes through the Gulf appear to wander. The effects of these local variations can not be overestimated as current and winds greatly affected the maximum attainable speeds in different 
41

regions of the Gulf, with currents accounting for as much as 50 percent of a ship’s speed (LugoFernández et al. 2007; Salvador 1991b:2). 

Figure 4.1. Trade routes in the Gulf of Mexico, sixteenth-nineteenth centuries (illustration by A. Borgens, 

after Garrison et al. 1989a:Figure 11-4 and Lugo-Fernández et al 2007:Figure 1B). 

With the coming of the French to the Gulf of Mexico during the late seventeenth and 

early eighteenth centuries, exemplified by the founding of the La Salle Colony (1685), Biloxi 

(1699), Mobile (Dauphin Island, 1699), and New Orleans (1718), new trade routes developed. 

The French maintained active routes between their Gulf settlements and the Windward Islands 

and controlled commerce on the Mississippi River. These routes, which involved coastal trade 

as well as routes through the center of the Gulf, permitted communication between New France, 

France, and her southern colonies. During this period, New Orleans was the dominant port along 

the northern Gulf of Mexico, with Pensacola as a distant second (Bauer 1988:127). Pensacola 

was well-positioned but the bar across its harbor remained a problem well into the nineteenth 

century (Orleans Gazette 18 June 1819). Much like the Spanish, the French saw little reason to 

modify their trade routes while the Gulf of Mexico remained in equilibrium; as a result, these 

routes were constant from circa 1699–1763 (Garrison et al. 1989a). Throughout much of the 
42

eighteenth century, the French and Spanish operated in separate spheres within the Gulf, only 

interacting through warfare, privateers, and, occasionally, the adjacent ports of Mobile and 

Pensacola (Surrey 1916). The routes to and from Veracruz also continued into the 1800s, 

although Spain lost is monopoly due to incursions by the British and French. Despite the 

eventual decline of the Veracruz route, Havana remained an important port for trade and traffic 

within the Gulf of Mexico until the Cuban Revolution. 

As discussed below, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were a tumultuous 

time in the Gulf of Mexico, with increased pressure from British, and, later, American interests. 

However, it was also a time of greatly-expanded trade (Coastal Environments 1977:Figure 3; 

Pearson et al. 2003:4-61). The increased importance of New Orleans as a transshipment point 

for interior materials bound for both foreign and domestic ports and the development of new 

ports such as Lake Charles (1803), Grand Terre (ca. 1810), Galveston (1816), and Key West 

(1822) helped to drive this expansion. As a result of these new ports and the general settlement 

of the coastline, coastal trade boomed during the early nineteenth century with many small 

vessels transporting goods between minor ports, landings, and major ports. This trend in the 

Gulf of Mexico was part of a nationwide increase. Between 1790 and 1810, U.S. coastal trade 

quadrupled to reach 405,000 tons and constitute 25–30 percent of U.S. merchant marine tonnage 

(Bauer 1988:105). However, in the Gulf of Mexico the major ports still controlled long-distance 

trade, a pattern that culminated with the establishment of a packet line between New York and 

New Orleans in 1837 and New York and Galveston in the 1850s (Bauer 1988:127–128). As the 

U.S. came to dominate the Gulf of Mexico, trade routes along the rivers and connecting the Gulf 

Coast with the East Coast through the Straits of Florida became more important. This trade 

eventually developed into a triangle with the Gulf of Mexico, Europe, and the U.S. East Coast at 

its vertices (Garrison et al. 1989a). Trade also became more evenly distributed between ports as 

the nineteenth century progressed. While New Orleans remained the dominant cotton port, 

handling half the cotton grown in the country in 1858, Mobile was also very important, 

particularly after the Americans took over the region between the Pearl and Perdido rivers. The 

Texas ports, despite being hampered by shallow harbors, also became more important as 

settlement spread west following independence from Mexico (Bauer 1988:127; Francaviglia 

1998). As discussed further below, Central and South American ports were also important 

during this time, receiving a substantial amount of coastal trade from U.S. ports. 

While the advent of steamships, first attempted at New Orleans circa 1811 but not of 

substantial importance until the 1830s (Bauer 1988:70; Garrison et al. 1989a), did not cause 

drastic changes in Gulf of Mexico trade routes, the development of railroads, commerce raiding 

during the Civil War, and the opening of the Panama Canal did (Garrison et al. 1989a:11-23). 

The railroads replaced rivers as the major routes from the interior to ports, causing a shift from 

ports that had natural benefits to those with political clout. Additionally, the opening of the 

Panama Canal in 1914 shifted the emphasis from eastern Gulf ports to those in the western Gulf 

with better access to West Coast and Asian markets through the canal (Garrison et al. 1989a:11-

23). 

Reference to Figure 4.1 shows the position of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck at the nexus of 

many of these trade routes. The position of the wreck makes it difficult to use its location as an 

indicator of its origin or destination, as only coastal trade and in-bound traffic to Mobile or 

eastern ports can be eliminated. However, this location does suggest that the wreck may be 

indicative of the types of vessels plying the Gulf of Mexico during the early nineteenth century. 
43

To that end, it is necessary to understand the political and technological conditions in the Gulf of 

Mexico at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. 

4.3 European Territorial Transitions Towards the End of 

 the Eighteenth Century 

4.3.1 British and Spanish Growth in the Gulf 

In 1754, the dispute between British and Canadian colonists over the creation of a fort at 

the juncture of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers culminated in the French and Indian 

Wars. The British military succeeded in dominating the North American campaigns and in 

capturing all of France’s Caribbean possessions except Saint Dominique. Faced with the British 

occupation of Spanish Havana and their blockade of the Gulf, France chose to cede Louisiana 

west of the Mississippi and New Orleans to her close ally Spain (De Grummond 1983:12). The 

resulting treaty of Fontainebleau was signed on 3 November 1762. The subsequent Treaty of 

Paris, signed on 10 February 1763, virtually eliminated France from North America. The British 

gained almost all of Canada, the Louisiana territory east of the Mississippi River (excluding New 

Orleans), and the right to navigate the river (De Grummond 1983:12). England returned the 

Caribbean islands of Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy, Guadaloupe, Martinique, and its 

dependencies to France. Spain, eager to repossess Havana, forfeited Florida to England, thus 

giving the British control of the Mississippi north of Bayou Manchac and control of the Gulf 

from the isle of New Orleans east to the Atlantic Ocean (De Grummond 1983:12). 

Britain quickly established forts in the Louisiana territory at Manchac and Baton Rouge. 

British territorial acquisitions in North America would be brief, however, as its colonies revolted 

in 1776, declaring independence. The expulsion of British sovereignty in southern North 

America was effected with assistance from the Spanish, who were at war with France in May 

1779. Spaniards in the Gulf decided to systematically remove France and her (British) allies 

from the territory. Bernardo de Gálvez, the Spanish Governor of Louisiana, mounted two 

successful expeditions to capture Manchac and Baton Rouge from the British in September of 

1779 (De Grummond 1983:20). After obtaining reinforcements from Havana, Galvez would 

continue onward to take Mobile in 1780 and Pensacola in 1781 (De Grummond 1983:20). As 

part of the Treaty of Paris that formally recognized the American Independence on 3 September 

1783, Britain awarded Florida to Spain (Owsley 1981:8). This acquisition gave Spain the 

complete control of the coast from the Yucatan to the Atlantic Ocean. 

4.3.2 Renewed Threat of French Dominance 

The French losses on the North American continent were tempered by the wealth accrued 

from its Caribbean possessions. The island of Saint Dominique, the approximate size of 

Maryland, was the most profitable plantation colony in the New World, producing 40 percent of 

Europe’s sugar (30 percent of the world’s sugar exports) and 60 percent of its coffee (Dubois and 

Garrigus 2006:8; Rothman 2005:75). By the late eighteenth century, the value of exports from 

Saint Dominique exceeded those of the United States and accounted for almost one-third of 

France’s overseas trade (Scheina 2003:1). Slaves were regularly imported into Saint Dominique 

for the cultivation of these products and one-third to one-half would die within a few years of 

their arrival at the island (Dubois and Garrigus 2006:8). A slave revolt at Saint Dominique in 

1791 would have repercussions in the United States, as the fear of similar circumstances 
44

prompted the United States Congress to pass a law in 1794 that made it illegal for U.S. citizens 

to participate in the slave trade (Deyle 2005:19). Ironically, the unfolding events at Saint 

Dominique would increase the slave trade into the Louisiana territory and directly impact the 

commercial growth of New Orleans. 

As the slave rebellion gained momentum at Saint Dominique, French privateering in the 

Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico also increased. In 1793, the French envoy to the U.S. at 

Guadaloupe invited Americans to acquire privateer commissions and join the French armed 

service. Though this action was seen as a violation of American neutrality, American vessels 

equipped themselves in secret and departed for Guadaloupe (Faye 1940a:431). For French 

mariners, service on a French privateer evoked a sense of national patriotism as these corsairs 

were perceived to “wage war as loyally as the ships of his imperial majesty” (Aury 1808). 

Following the British declaration of war against Spain in 1796, France proclaimed British 

maritime commerce contraband, as well as the transport of British goods upon American ships 

(Gathii 2006: 724; Faye 1940a:430). French and British navies alike, desperate for supplies and 

deserters, seized American vessels and impressed their crews. In 1798, the United States 

retaliated first against the French by entering into an undeclared naval conflict, the Quasi-War, in 

the Caribbean (Smith 2004: 3). Privateering in the region was thriving, likely encouraged by the 

French focus on American vessels as enemy prizes. At least 150 French colonial privateers were 

operating in the eastern Caribbean, attacking primarily British and American commerce; at the 

same time, 33 privateers were sailing out of Santiago de Cuba and Baracoa, Cuba (Faye 

1940a:433). As a means of suppressing French privateering efforts (world-wide), the U.S. 

Congress authorized the capture of French military vessels and the seizure of French cargo 

(Gathii 2006:724). By 1799, the year Napoleon Bonaparte would come to power in a coup 

d'état, French vice-admiralty and prize courts had been established in ‘neutral’ Spanish 

territories at New Orleans and in the Cuban port of Baracoa (Faye 1940a:431–432). New 

Orleans was frequently used by the privateers for selling and disposing of stolen vessels and 

cargoes, as privateers they could freely dispose of these prizes unlike Spanish ports, where they 

had to acquire permission from the presiding provinces (Faye 1940a:431) 

The Convention of Mortefontaine was signed on 3 October 1800, formally ending the 

Quasi-War with France. The United States, however, was not compensated for an estimated $12 

million in commercial losses; over 2000 American ships had been captured by French military 

vessels and privateers. As news of the treaty spread, tension in the Caribbean relaxed and attacks 

upon American shipping declined (Toll 2006:143; Gathii 2006:726). 

In 1800, a secret agreement between Spain and France, known as the Treaty of San 

Ildefonso, would grant the Louisiana territory to France on the condition that the son-in-law of 

Charles IV, Louis Francis Philibert of Bourbon, was provided a kingdom in Italy. Napoleon 

sought to gain Louisiana as part of a broader plan to revitalize France’s American Empire 

through the restoration of the sugar plantation economy at Saint Dominique. He intended to stop 

the ongoing illegal sale of provisions to Saint Dominique by U.S. merchants, providing this 

support through a French-owned Louisiana instead (Dubois and Garrigus 2006:33). 

As France was on the brink of repossessing Louisiana, it was beginning to lose its 

Caribbean possessions. A coalition of African and Island-born plantation workers, inspired in 

part by revolutions in France and North America, revolted again at Saint Dominique in late 1801 

(Dubois and Garrigus 2006:8). Twelve thousand of Napoleon’s French troops would disembark 
45

for Samana’s Bay on 29 January 1802 to quash the revolt led by Toussaint L’Ouverture 

(Toussaint would later switch sides and assist the French against British forces). The liberation 

of Haiti in 1803 would be assisted through the intervention of the British military. France and 

Britain were again at war following the dissolution of the Peace of Amiens established on 1 

October 1801. After months of struggle, the British Navy ultimately captured the French held 

ports of Libérté, Port-de Paux, Port-au-Prince, and Aux Cayes in October and November 1803. 

The fleeing French squadron surrendered to the British Navy at the end of November (Scheina 

2003:16). Over 350,000 died during the slave rebellion in Haiti (1791–1803), including 200,000 

blacks and affranchias (mixed blood), 75,000 French soldiers, 45,000 British soldiers, and 

25,000 white colonists. This is more than five times the combined total losses from the 

American Revolution (Scheina 2003:xiii). 

In 1803, Spain formally transferred the territory of Louisiana to France. The promise of a 

French Western ‘empire’ was brief, however, as Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States on 

30 April 1803 for $15 million. Dubois and Garrigus (2006:8) assert that the French difficulties 

in Haiti caused Napoleon to sell Louisiana to the U.S. De Grummond (1983:33) instead suggests 

it was because Napoleon believed he could not defend Louisiana in the face of a British attack. 

The slave rebellion in Haiti is considered the beginning of the wars for independence in Latin 

America (Scheina 2003:18). 

The plantation and slave economies in areas such as New Orleans and Cuba expanded 

dramatically at this time, exporting sugar that was no longer provided by Haiti (Dubois and 

Garrigus 2006: 8). The city of New Orleans would figure prominently in the region’s newfound 

cultivation of sugar, as it replaced the primary agricultural export, indigo, which had been 

ravished by caterpillars (Rothman 2005:74; De Grummond 1983:28). Prior to the introduction of 

sugar processing, Lower Louisiana’s principal exports at the end of the eighteenth century were 

indigo, tobacco, lumber, and fur. In the 1790s, the production of sugar along the Mississippi 

initiated an era of commercial reorientation and expansion, and created an industry that would 

rely heavily upon the importation of slaves (Rothman 2005:74). The economic impact of the 

sugar industry on New Orleans caused an increase in both the slave population and U.S 

immigration, spurred by the wealth and commercial prospects of the port. The slave population 

grew faster than that of the white population, and the free people of color doubled (Rothman 

2005:78; De Grummond and Morazan 1961:11). New Orleans would become one of the 

principal slave markets in the U.S. Between 1790 and 1810 alone, almost 18,000 slaves were 

introduced into Lower Louisiana from Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States (Rothman 

2005: 83). 

4.4 U.S. Expansionism and the Growth of Piracy (1803–1820) 

4.4.1 The Emergence of Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico 

Mercantile shipping of New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory following the Louisiana 

Purchase was undefined. Though a recognized U.S. territory, Spanish tariffs still levied duties 

against exports and imports into the region. Ships hailing from New Orleans did not have papers 

or a flag to sail under. A petition by fifty-five New Orleans merchants pre-empted a 

congressional act in 1804 that would formally extend U.S. “rights and privileges” to the new 

territory and would additionally create two definable regions; the Orleans territory and the 

Louisiana Territory (De Grummond 1983:38). On 24 February 1804, special legislation for the 
46

organization of the customs service was provided, thus enabling seaborne commercial activity 

for the new U.S. port (Works Progress Administration [WPA] 1942: iv). A byproduct of the 

congressional act was the prohibition of slave importation into Louisiana from localities outside 

of the United States. The slave trade between Cuba and New Orleans was essential to the region, 

and the restriction on this trade was interpreted as a government attempt to maintain the slave 

trade monopoly enjoyed by South Carolina. South Carolina had recently reopened the U.S. trade 

with Africa, reversing the prohibition enacted in 1794 (Deyle 2005:19). The cultivation of 

cotton and sugar, the key agricultural products of the Lower Louisiana Territory, would 

potentially be harmed by the restriction on the trade. 

The establishment of the privateering/smuggling enterprise at Barataria came at a 

convenient time for New Orleans planters and consumers, as it was on the eve of U.S. legislation 

that would restrict the ability to import slaves and foreign products into the port. Jean Lafitte 

established himself at Barataria in 1805 with the assistance of the prominent New Orleans 

businessman Joseph Sauvinet (De Grummond and Morazan 1961:7). The demand for stolen 

slaves was immense (Lafitte’s privateers did not directly deal in the Cuban slave trade, but stole 

the cargos from slavers). Slaves purchased legally within the United States cost $600–700 (some 

were as much as $1000); those traded through Lafitte’s privateering enterprise cost $150–200 

(De Grummond 1983:41, 168). Congress prohibited the importation of slaves into the United 

States (at large) in 1807, again inadvertently increasing the demand for this valuable commodity 

through illegal sources. 

In addition to the domestic restriction of the slave trade, foreign legislation also impacted 

Gulf of Mexico commerce. Foreign policies established by Napoleon in 1806 (Continental 

System) and by England in 1807 (Orders of the Council) increased the difficulty of U.S. 

maritime commerce abroad. In response, President Jefferson signed the Embargo Act into law 

on 22 December 1807. It both prohibited U.S. ships from conducting trade with any foreign port 

and closed American ports to British ships (Toll 2006:309). Continued U.S. embargos against 

British and French goods (Embargo Act 2 and 3, Macon’s Bill No. 1) likely added to the demand 

for these products. Foreign merchandise, especially English goods, became valuable, difficult to 

obtain merchandise that could be acquired from Barataria. Such was the demand for Baratarian 

wares that traders gave and received orders for them on the streets of New Orleans with little 

secrecy (De Grummond and Morazan 1961:16). 

The dissolution of the powerful Spanish-French alliance and the resulting war would 

dramatically impact privateering in the Caribbean and inadvertently divert these activities 

towards the Gulf of Mexico. War between France and Spain in 1808 closed Spanish colonial 

ports to French vessels, though piratical activities already had begun to subside in the region. 

Only a few privateers were still in operation out of Guadaloupe in 1806–1807, and only three 

were out of Martinique in 1809 (Faye 1940a:433). Many of these pirates moved to the more 

open territory of the Gulf. 

As the Napoleonic War endured, France would lose more of its Caribbean territories. 

The French losses in the Antilles and at Haiti would create an unforeseen difficulty for French 

privateers in the Gulf of Mexico. As the British expelled the French, the French corsairs, 

stripped of their ability to operate in the Caribbean, would seek refuge in Louisiana (Aury 1812). 

The contraband normally deposited in these locations would be diverted to Grand Terre (De 

Grummond and Morazan 1961:8). By 1807, Lafitte’s new enterprise was thriving, with 

warehouses established in New Orleans, Donaldsonville, and Barataria. By late 1809, the British 
47

Navy had captured all the French Antilles except Guadaloupe and Saint Martin and largely 

expelled the French privateers from the Caribbean. Concurrently, an estimated 3000–5000 men 

were employed by Lafitte’s Barataria operation (Faye 1940a:434; De Grummond 1961:8, 11). 

The last of the French Islands, Guadaloupe, would fall to the British in February 1810, though 

French letters of marque could still be obtained at Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin (De 

Grummond 1961:4, 53). A new source of privateer letters for Baratarian mariners emerged at 

the close of 1811 in Cartagena, the most strongly fortified city in the New World (De Grummond 

and Morazan 1961:12). 

4.4.2 Breaking the Spanish Stronghold: U.S. Control of the 

 Northern Gulf Territories 

During the same period U.S. interests were growing in the region. The Spanish 

government, eager to reestablish itself in East Florida, invited U.S. citizens to colonize the 

territory beginning circa 1790. Many British settlers had evacuated in 1784, leaving the area 

seriously under-populated (Owsley and Smith 1997:66-67). At this time, Spain would also 

increase the U.S. commercial potential in the region. In 1795, the United States was extended 

the right to freely navigate the Mississippi and to trade in New Orleans for a tenure of three 

years. Spain and the United States also negotiated the boundary at the 31st parallel. A U.S. fort 

was quickly established at Ward’s Bluff near the headwaters of the Mobile River, where the 

Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers converge. Navigation of the river was still governed by Spain 

and a 12 percent duty was levied against goods exported on the Mobile River (Owsley and Smith 

1997:61). 

In mid- and late-1810, U.S. settlers in Baton Rouge, perhaps encouraged by the Hidalgo 

Revolution in Mexico, seized the city, declared it independent, and shortly thereafter requested 

admission to the U.S. In December, President Madison annexed the Baton Rouge District under 

the [false] premise that it had been part of the Louisiana Purchase (Owsley and Smith 1997: 63, 

68-69). Possibly envisioning and perhaps trying to avoid a conflict with the United States, 

Spanish Governor Vincente Folch offered to convey Mobile and West Florida to the U.S., only 

to later rescind his offer (Owsley and Smith 1997:64). 

Many American settlers had migrated into East Florida, so many, in fact, that Spain 

closed Florida to U.S. immigration in 1804. The majority of the populace was from the United 

States, and they were discontent with the high duties on imports and exports into the region 

(Owsley and Smith 1997:66-67). As U.S. hostilities with Britain increased, there was also 

concern that England might take possession of Spanish Florida as a base for harassing U.S. 

commerce and for launching military attacks (Schoultz 1998:2). Madison appointed General 

George Mathews to secretly negotiate the surrender of the Floridas, though after Folch refused to 

negotiate, the Americans launched an offensive. Madison removed Mathews from his 

appointment, though he did not interfere with his creation of an armed “Republic of Florida.” 

Mathews appointed General John G. Macintosh as commander of the expedition of five gunboats 

that anchored off Fernandina in March of 1812. After the surrender of the Spanish garrison, 

Macintosh and two hundred men advanced towards Saint Augustine and commenced a siege of 

the city that was nearly a year long. In April, Mathews appealed to the government to annex 

East Florida. Mathew’s actions were later repudiated by the president, who insisted that 

Mathews had not been authorized to seize East Florida unless it had been voluntarily offered by 
48

the Spanish or had been threatened by invasion. Mathew’s appointment was revoked, and the 

U.S. eventually withdrew its troops (Owsley and Smith 1997:71-80) 

The New Orleans ‘Association’, an organization composed mainly of merchants and 

influential businessman, was determined to secure Florida for the United States and attempted to 

organize two filibuster expeditions in 1816-1817. The Associates offered to supply men and 

arms for an attack on Florida commanded by José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara. It was 

anticipated that Gutiérrez would seize Florida and then sell it to the United States for two to three 

million dollars. Gutiérrez wanted assurance that the U.S. would recognize the capture as lawful 

and would provide compensation for the territory. The Associates could not give this assurance 

and Gutiérrez withdrew from the operation (Warren 1938a:807). 

A second plan to attack Florida involved persuading Francisco Xavier Mina to conduct a 

dual expedition against New Spain. In early 1817, Mina was amassing ships, arms, and men for 

an attack on the Mexican mainland. Louis Michael Aury, a privateer from Guadaloupe, was 

developing his operation at Galveston Island, and the Associates hoped it would be the basis for 

launching an expedition against Florida at Pensacola as well as Mexico (Warren 1938a:808). As 

Mina and Aury were making preparations, Job Northrup, on Aury’s flagship Independencia (one 

6-pounder) anchored off the Florida coast and captured a Spanish lieutenant sent to the ship to 

receive dispatches (Warren 1938b:810; Faye 1939:1059). Northrop warned José Masot, the 

commandant of Pensacola, of the planned impending attack and requested a $50,000 ransom to 

suspend hostilities for twelve months (Warren 1938b:811). Northrop returned to Galveston 

empty-handed (except for the capture of the Pensacola pilot boat) as Masot opted instead to 

reinforce Pensacola for an attack. He was promised four brigantines with 10,000 pesos and 200 

muskets to be sent from Cienfuegos as aid (Warren 1938b:812; Faye 1939:1059). 

Notwithstanding, the planned attack never came to fruition. Mina met with the Associates, but 

was not persuaded to launch a dual expedition. Like Gutiérrez, Mina did not approve of the 

scheme to sell the territory to the U.S., and, thus, he maintained his original planned expedition 

to the Mexican coast (Faye 1940b:764). 

Yet another attempt to liberate Florida from Spain would be organized by Englishman Sir 

Gregor MacGregor in June of 1817. With a small force of men enlisted primarily from 

Baltimore, Charleston, and Savannah, MacGregor occupied Amelia Island and announced he 

was going to conquer Florida from Spain. He was able to successfully attack and defeat the 

Spanish garrison at Fernandina, but did not have enough men and supplies to continue his 

Florida expedition (Wilgus 1925:207). 

Spanish Florida, despite repeated attempts to take the territory by force, would be won 

not by the sword but through diplomatic means. The Adams-Onís treaty of 1819 ceded Florida 

to the United States in exchange for $5 million and renunciation of American claims to Texas. It 

also firmly established the Sabine as the territorial border between the United States and eastern 

New Spain (Schoultz 1998:16). 

4.4.3 The Expulsion of the British at New Orleans 

The abdication of Napoleon in 1814 would allow England to focus the strength of its 

military resources on the United States. The United States government had declared war against 

Britain on 18 June 1812 and, on the same day, authorized the president to issue letters of marque 

and general reprisal to private armed vessels. Six privateers would be commissioned from New 
49

Orleans, though Louisiana would not be the center of military activity for another two years (De 

Grummond 1961:17). 

Louisiana, which had been granted statehood on 30 April 1812, was ill-prepared for a 

British attack. The U.S. government had failed to arm the state militia, and it had ceased 

construction on a much-needed shallow-draft frigate at the navy yard at Madisonville on the 

Tchefuncta River (Casey 1987:3). Major General Andrew Jackson arrived at New Orleans in 

November 1814, recognized it was critically unprepared, and began fortifying the city for the 

impending attack (Toll 2006:445). 

The British were organizing a naval expedition at Negril Bay, Jamaica in late November 

1814 (Owsley 1981:138-139). This last major amphibious assault of the war was commanded by 

Sir Edward Pakenham, commanding the army, and British naval officer Admiral Sir Alexander 

Cochrane (Toll 2006: 445). The amassed fleet consisted of 70-80 ships of sail, of which 50 were 

warships carrying 1000 guns. The remaining vessels were merchant ships, chartered to carry the 

rich booty stored at New Orleans to England (De Grummond 1961:29). 

As the fleet was making preparations, Cochrane was trying to remedy the shortage of 

shallow-draft vessels essential for moving British forces into Lake Pontchartrain, the intended 

focus of the attack. As his orders to send flatboats had not been obeyed, Cochrane improvised 

by appointing Captain Robert Spence to purchase or charter additional small schooners in 

Pensacola. Spence was only partially successful in his mission, as the fleet was still short on 

shallow-draft vessels. The British expedition arrived on Chandler (Chandeleur) Island and 

commenced scouting the area. On 13 December 1814 the British Navy engaged a small 

American flotilla of five gunboats (and a tender) which had been expedited to Lake Borgne to 

route the approaching fleet. Forty-five British barges (1200 men total), each mounting a single 

12-pounder to 24-pounder gun, attacked and captured the five heavily armed American boats 

(183 men) (Smith 2004:57; Owsley 1981:137–139). 

British regiments advanced to a plantation on the eastern side of the Mississippi, eight 

miles downriver of New Orleans and established their positions with their combined total of 

6,000 men. The American army led by Major General Andrew Jackson was composed of 

regular troops, free blacks, southern volunteers, and Baratarians numbering 3,500 with an 

additional 1000 in reserve (Toll 2006:446). 

On 8 January 1815, the British regiments advanced on Jackson’s line, two miles upstream 

from the British encampment, into a volley of artillery and musket fire. British causalities were 

291 dead, 1262 wounded and 484 captured. In contrast, the Americans suffered 6 killed and 2 

wounded (Toll 2006:447). General John Lambert, who succeeded Pakenham after his death in 

battle, rejected Cochrane’s proposal for a second assault and retreated. The decisive British loss 

at New Orleans occurred two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent established peace between the U.S. 

and Britain (Owsley 1981:192). 

4.5 The Wars for Latin American Independence (1810–1822) 

As Britain and France confronted the end of their expansionist ideals in the western 

hemisphere, so too would Spain. Having briefly controlled the entire Gulf from the Yucatan to 

the Atlantic Ocean, internal insurrections in Latin American and the U.S. expansion into the 

Florida territories would reverse over three hundred years of Spanish dominance. By the turn of 

the century, Spanish territories in Latin America would begin to extricate themselves from 
50

imperial authority. Revolutionary governments would commission privateers to attack Spanish 

shipping in the Gulf as a means to weaken Ferdinand’s power through commercial tactics 

(Warren 1938b:814). The United States government was keenly aware that both the U.S. and 

Latin America desired to eradicate Europe from the Western Hemisphere. In reviewing the 

multitude of insurgencies in Latin America, President Madison regarded the revolutionaries with 

what he called a spirit of “enlarged philanthropy,” meaning he would permit U.S merchants to 

sell them arms (Schoultz 1998:1). 

The first key philosophical break with Spain on the mainland occurred in 1797, when 

Francisco de Miranda and two South American dissidents appealed to the British and American 

governments to assist in the liberation of South America. Miranda envisioned a defensive 

alliance between the United States, Britain, and the South American provinces. Though Britain 

intimated it would offer a 10,000-man expedition, the United States withdrew, not wishing to 

become involved in a war (Scheina 2003:21). 

True revolution and military challenge to the Spanish ‘Royalist’ forces would be effected 

by the Hidalgo revolt in 1810. Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costillo conspired with militia captains 

Ignacio Allended, Juan Aldema, and Mariano Abasola to replace the viceregal government with 

a creole junta that would rule in the name of Ferdinand VII (Depalo 1997:14). After capturing 

principal locations in the region of Bajío (Mexico), 80,000 rebel troops commanded by Father 

Miguel Hidalgo y Costillo would be defeated by the Spanish (through the accident of a grass 

fire) near Guadalajara in January 1811 (Chipman 1992:220-221). As part of the revolutionary 

movement, Juan Bautista de las Casas organized raids against San Antonio, Nacogdoches, and 

La Bahia and arrested the Spanish governor and lieutenant governor of the province. Four 

hundred Spanish troops surrounded the governor’s mansion and arrested de las Casas; both 

Bautista de las Casas and Hidalgo were executed (Faulk 1964:134–135).This first phase of the 

war, fought primarily in Central Mexico and northward into Sinaloa and Texas, ended 

disastrously for the insurgent forces. (Scheina 2003:75). 

The failed Hidalgo revolution was almost immediately followed by military expeditions 

in southern Mexico led by José María Morelos y Pavón, a successful commander under Hidalgo. 

After several successful campaigns and the capture of Acapulco, Morelos was defeated by the 

Spanish at Valladolid in December of 1813 (Scheina 2003:79). Morelos was eventually captured 

by Spanish General Iturbide as he was escorting the Congress through enemy territory. Morelos 

was executed by firing squad near Mexico City on 22 December 1815 (Depalo 1997:17). 

Concurrent with Morelos’ campaigns were those organized by José Bernardo Gutiérrez 

de Lara in 1812. Gutiérrez had originally been commissioned by Hidalgo to solicit U.S. aid for 

the patriot cause. After failing to be officially received at Washington, Gutiérrez returned to 

Natchitoches where he met Lt. Augustus W. Magee, a U.S. officer patrolling the ‘neutral 

territory’ with a small contingency of soldiers. In June 1812, Magee resigned his military 

commission and joined Gutiérrez. With 300 men, Gutiérrez and Magee successfully captured 

Nacogdoches and La Bahia, but were forced by the Royalist army under General Salcedo to 

retreat to San Antonio. Magee died and was replaced by Samuel Kemper as commander of the 

military expedition (under Gutiérrez leadership). At the Battle of Salado Creek, in April 1813, 

the Royalists were defeated. Gutiérrez massacred 17 Spanish officers, an act that alienated U.S. 

supporters and caused many, including Kemper, to desert. José Álvarez Toledo replaced 

Kemper as commander of the army, but the Royalist troops under Joaquín Arredonde soon 

defeated the revolutionaries at the Battle of Medina, forcing many to escape into Louisiana 
51

(Faulk 1964:135; Wilgus 1925:197–200). The death of Morelos ended the second phase of the 

revolutionary war in Mexico, in which the rebels had first won then lost practically all of 

southern Mexico (Scheina 2003:80). 

Vincente Guerrero, a lieutenant in Morelos’ army, would continue military expeditions 

against the Spanish. Insurgent leaders Guerrero and Guadaloupe Victoria commanded 1000 men 

at Oaxaca and 2000 men between Puebla and Veracruz, respectively. The Royalist army had 

80,000 armed soldiers. These revolutionaries vexed Royalist troops but did not pose a real threat 

(Scheina 2003:80). 

4.5.1 Filibusters in Texas and the Mexican Republic of Galveston 

Between 1815 and 1817, internal campaigns to liberate Mexico from Spain would 

continue with encouragement and financial assistance from the United States. The city of New 

Orleans would be instrumental in supplying provisions and munitions to insurgents and to the 

privateer navies assisting in these rebellions. The New Orleans Association, mentioned above, 

offered assistance to these groups and arranged for the sales of arms and supplies (see chapter 5). 

Louis Michel Aury and Francisco Xavier Mina organized another filibuster expedition 

centered at Galveston Island in 1817. Louis Aury had established a privateering base at 

Galveston Island in late 1816 under the authority of José Manuel de Herrera, the official minister 

(of the Mexican junta) to the United States. Herrera declared Galveston a port under the nowdefunct Mexican Congress and named Aury as its governor. Aury capitalized on his newfound 

“legitimacy” by plundering vessels of varying nationalities, though U.S. vessels were forbidden 

as prizes (Chipman 1992:238; Wilgus 1925:203-204; Owsley and Smith 1997:136–137). 

In preparation for Aury and Mina’s filibustering expedition, vessels left New Orleans for 

Galveston almost daily with men and supplies by October 1816 (Davis 2005:309). In April of 

1817, Aury’s fleet transported Francisco Xavier Mina and Henry Perry to Nuevo Santander; 

Mina marched inland to Soto la Marina, and Perry marched along the coast to La Bahía 

(Chipman 1992:238; Wilgus 1925:206). Mina’s force was overtaken by Joaquín de Arredondo’s 

army, and Perry’s contingent was defeated by Texas Governor Antonio Martínez. Perry 

committed suicide to prevent his own capture (Chipman 1992:238–239). After landing the 

expedition, Aury tentatively reorganized his headquarters at Matagorda Bay but departed for 

Galveston after learning of Mina’s capture. Mina was executed in October 1817. 

In Aury’s absence, Lafitte usurped leadership of Galveston and installed a new 

government, which was sworn in by Luis Iturribarría, a deputy to Herrera. He exploited his 

leadership of Galveston both by assisting filibustering factions out of New Orleans and by spying 

on these factions for Spain. The payments Lafitte received from Spain were used to finance his 

privateering ventures and to improve Galveston’s ramshackle community (Wilgus 1925:206). 

4.5.2 Cartagena and New Granada 

Though the independence of Cartagena/New Granada/Columbia is a larger segment of 

the struggles in South America, its importance to the Gulf of Mexico cannot be understated. 

Privateers Louis Aury and Renato Beluche both served as commanders of its privateer fleet/navy 

and the commercial link between these privateers, Galveston, and New Orleans was great. The 

Cartagenan privateers would carry troops, arms, and munitions to ports such as Santa Marte and 
52

deposit stolen merchandise at Grand Terre. Beluche would repair and outfit privateers at New 

Orleans for the Cartagenan navy (De Grummond 1983:71, 74) 

Cartagena declared its independence on 11 November 1811 (De Grummond 1983:68; 

Scheina 2003:26), the first city and province in New Granada to do so. It was immediately 

besieged by a Royalist army (Scheina 2003:26-27). Spain cut off the source of supplies to 

Cartagena from the interior and in retaliation Cartagena sent a vessel with blank privateer 

commissions to Grande Terre and invited the Baratarians to attack Spanish shipping (De 

Grummond and Morazan 1961:12). 

Simon Bolívar and a small group of revolutionaries traveled to Cartagena in 1812 and 

successfully drove the Royalist forces into Venezuela. Bolívar was awarded citizenship and the 

rank of brigadier by the Cartagenan junta. Bolívar was able to convince the junta to allow his 

attack of Venezuela. Bolívar moved across more than 800 miles of Venezuela, attacking 

Royalist forces and forcing a capitulation on 6 August 1813 (Scheina 2003:29). 

Following his successes in Venezuela, Bolívar returned to Cartagena and discovered it 

was ruled by two Federalist factions. The port of Cartagena which had been liberated in 1811 

was, in 1815, under the control of Manuel de Castillo and the Cartagenan army (Faye 1941:616–

617). Castillo refused to let Bolívar enter the port and he would not provide assistance against 

the approaching Royalist forces. To avoid a civil war between Cartagenan factions, Bolívar 

resigned and withdrew to Jamaica on 11 May 1815 (Scheina 2003:30). Aury, commanding the 

Cartagenan navy, attempted to preserve independence by resisting the encroaching Spanish 

military. 

Spain had disembarked a large expedition to Latin America, including a Spanish army of 

10,640 men, 42 transports, and 18 warships. The Royalist forces arrived off Puerto Santo on 15 

April 1815. A combined force of 5000 European soldiers and 3000 Royalists under General 

Morales were dispatched to Cartagena in 56 ships. By 5 December, Lieutenant General Pablo 

Morillo, the Spanish naval commander, blockaded the port of Cartagena with Morales troops 

enforcing the interior (Scheina 2003:31). Aury, in the face of such overwhelming odds and 

lacking gunpowder, was forced to withdraw. His fleet transported and escorted over 2,000 

Cartagenan refugees through the blockade, though most would perish in the effort (Faye 

1941:620). After a 108-day siege, Cartagena surrendered to the Spanish Royalists on 6 

December 1815 (Scheina 2003: 31). 

Simon Bolívar, who had relocated to Haiti after the Royalists took Jamaica in 1816, 

continued to mount expeditions to re-liberate Venezuela but did not secure complete 

independence until November 1823, when the defeated Royalist army withdrew to Cuba 

(Scheina 2003:38). In December of 1819, after the rebel victory at Boyacá, Bolívar secured the 

liberation of New Granada and imposed the creation of the Republic of Gran Colombia that was 

comprised of Columbia, Venezuela, and Ecuador (Scheina 2003:36). 

4.6 Mexican Independence and the End of Piracy in the Gulf 

After more than a decade of continuous warfare, the independence of Mexico was 

resolved diplomatically. Political changes in Spain would decisively culminate in events causing 

Royalist military leaders to unite with revolutionary forces in Mexico. In Spain, on 1 January 

1820, Colonel Rafeal Riego led a revolt that restored the Constitution of 1812. Legislation 

passed in Spain remanded provincial active militia men on duty to civil jurisdiction, except in 
53

regards to those of a direct military nature. Months later, this was extended to deprive the army 

of its military fueros (laws), thus threatening the social status and judicial immunities acquired 

through lengthy and dangerous military service. Growing numbers of Royalist officers came to 

embrace self-determination over continued Spanish rule (Depalo 1997:19) 

Augustín de Iturbide believed the unification of the insurgents with the seven regular and 

seventeen provincial regiments could succeed against the eleven peninsular expeditionary 

regiments (Depalo 1997:20). In late November Iturbide was communicating with insurgent 

commander Guerrero regarding a plan for independence. Iturbide and Guerrero issued the Plan 

of Iguala on 24 February 1821, which proposed creating an independent kingdom of Mexico 

with Ferdinand VII or another suitable prince as its constitutional monarch. The Catholic 

Church and the upper-class would retain their privileges. The formerly-hostile forces would be 

combined into the Army of the Three Guarantees with Iturbide as the commander. The Viceroy 

at Mexico City denounced Iturbide and rejected the plan. The Army of the Three Guarantees 

systemically captured important Royalist strongholds in Mexico through peaceful surrender. On 

24 August 1821, Iturbide and Juan O’Donojú, the newly appointed Captain General of New 

Spain, signed the Treaty of Córdaba. In September, the 16,000 man Army of the Three 

Guarantees marched on Mexico City (Scheina 2003:81–81). Agustín Cosme Damián de Iturbide 

y Arámburu proclaimed himself emperor in 1822, but he would be deposed by Republican forces 

and shot in 1823. In 1824, Mexico was reformed as a republic with Guadalupe Victoria as its 

first president. 

The bloody liberation of Latin America (1810–1824) would take its toll on the populace. 

The population of Ecuador, Venezuela, and Mexico were decreased by 25 percent (as compared 

to the 13 percent decrease during the U.S. Civil War) (Scheina 2003:xiv). The U.S. did not 

initially recognize Mexican independence, believing it would jeopardize Spanish ratification of 

the Adams-de Onís treaty, which ceded East Florida to the United States and accepted U.S. 

claims to West Florida. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 1819. Spain, however, did not 

agree until February 1821. The recognition process would not begin until mid 1822 (Schoultz 

1998:9). 

The perceived tranquility in the Gulf would be short-lived. In 1829, Spain launched an 

expedition to retake Mexico. A squadron of fourteen Spanish vessels, including frigates and 

ships-of-the-line, anchored off Tamaulipas on 25 July 1829. In August, Antonio López de Santa 

Anna, the governor of Veracruz, impressed three U.S. merchant vessels to transport 800 troops to 

Tecolutal to engage Spanish expeditionary troops at Pueblo Viejo. On 7 September, 2000 troops 

led by Gen Manuel Mier y Terán joined Santa Anna’s force for an attack on over 2000 Spanish 

troops near Tampico. The Spanish surrendered on 10 September 1829 and departed for Cuba 

(Grajales 1969:308; Scheina 2003:83). Political unrest continued for the new Spanish 

government, as Vice-President Anastasio Bustamante used the assembled army at Jalapa to 

overthrow President Guerrero in December (Scheina 2003:83). 

4.6.1 Demise of Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico 

Privateering in the Gulf of Mexico was encouraged, outfitted, and ultimately (sometimes 

indirectly) financed by opposing military and diplomatic factions at work in Europe, North 

America and Latin America. As Gulf territories were liberated and boundary disputes rectified, 

the need for mercenary naval forces diminished. As a result, the first substantial U.S. Navy 

attack on privateering activities occurred in 1814 against Barataria. This action was led by 
54

Commodore Patterson of the. Naval Station at New Orleans (Warren 1938a:205, Davis 

2005:191–192). While pirates remained active at Barataria as late as 1819, U.S. policing of the 

coast and of the organization at Galveston was ever-present by the end of the decade (Orleans 

Gazette 6 August 1819). 

The United States government would finally direct its energy toward the privateers in the 

second decade of the nineteenth century, an action humorously recognized in Britain as being 

long overdue (The Edinburgh Advertiser 1821:299). After misfortune in Matagorda Bay and the 

loss of his Galveston headquarters to Lafitte, Aury arrived at Amelia Island in September of 

1817, just weeks after the departure of George MacGregor. A week later, a dozen ships were in 

the harbor as part of Aury’s preparations to establish a privateer base. In December, just months 

after Louis Aury had established himself on Amelia Island; the U.S. navy mounted an attack, 

forcing Aury to withdraw to Charleston (Davis 2005:350). 

As part of the Adams-Onís Treaty (1819), Congress passed new legislation to protect 

commerce and punish piracy (Davis 2005: 402). The United States sent squadrons, including 

Commodore Porter, in pursuit of the pirates. Porter was policing the region with four British 

cruisers and, by 1822, was accredited with having nearly destroyed all the pirates in the West 

Indies (Kendall 1925:367). Commodore Patterson was working with a substantially larger fleet 

and finding success in capturing and legally condemning Gulf privateers. 

Pierre and Jean Lafitte, no longer able to broker deals with the Spanish government, 

found themselves isolated at Galveston and under the constant scrutiny of the U.S. schooner 

Lynx. As a gesture of good will, and as a means to personify himself as something other than a 

pirate, Lafitte hanged a member of his outfit for burglarizing the home of James Lyon in lower 

Saint Landry Parish (Davis 2005:413–414). Congress had just passed a bill authorizing harsh 

punishment for pirates and Lafitte was demonstrating his willingness to comply. The ruse was 

unsuccessful and Jean Lafitte finally presented an offer to Lieutenant Daniel Patterson of the 

New Orleans Naval Station, wherein the Lafitte brothers would abandon Galveston Island in 

exchange for safe passage outside American jurisdiction. The Lafitte brothers departed 

Galveston in May 1821, largely destroying the remaining camp (Davis 2005:419–422, 432). By 

1825, the “day of the buccaneer” was over (Kendall 1925:367). 

4.7 Shipbuilding and Vessel Types in the Gulf of Mexico 

4.7.1 U.S. Commercial Traffic at New Orleans 

The Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans documented U.S. vessels engaged in 

coastal commerce (enrollments) and vessels conducting foreign seafaring trade (registers). 

These documents provided a ship’s dimensions, a basic description, construction date and 

location, hailing port, the owner, and captain. It was a means of recording a vessel’s tonnage, 

which was the basis for the tabulation of customs duties. 

The first tonnage law in the United States was passed in 1789, fifteen years after it had 

been established in Britain (Lyman 1945:226). The U.S. law required all vessels over 20 tons 

built in the U.S. or imported prior to 16 May 1789 to be enrolled before engaging in trade 

between customs districts. In addition to giving economic preference to domestic built and 

owned vessels in an effort to promote the development of a U.S. merchant marine (Bauer 

1988:104), this legislation provided a useful document for studying the ships of the Gulf of 
55

Mexico. The determination of length was based on the “Builder’s Old Measurement” (B.O.M.) 

and was measured along the rabbet of the keel (Kemp 1976:117). Three-fifths of the beam was 

deducted from the length while the breadth was recorded from the ‘broadest part above the main 

wales”. For vessels with multiple decks, the depth was taken as one-half beam. Due to the 

prevalence of shallow-draft vessels in the U.S., Congress specified that the depth of singledecked vessels would be calculated from the top of the ceiling planking to the underside of the 

deck planks. The tonnage law used to deduce vessel dimension continued to be used without 

modification until 1864 (Lyman 1945:226). Registers and enrollments were issued to owners or 

masters after proper measurement and proof of date and place of construction were provided. 

U.S.-manufactured vessels of five tons or greater were entitled to the rights and privileges of 

American-documented vessels (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 2001). 

The first volume of the New Orleans Register and Enrollments commences with the 

origination of this documentation in New Orleans, on 24 February 1804 and continues through 

1820 (Works Progress Administration [WPA] 1941:iv). Nine hundred and twenty-three vessels 

are contained within the volume: 319 vessels are enrolled and 604 are registered (or both). A 

majority of the enrollments for the period are missing between 1804 and 1815. Ships and boats 

of all sizes embarked for New Orleans from various Atlantic and Gulf ports. 

There are generalities that can be deduced by reviewing statistics for the registered 

vessels that were engaged in commerce at New Orleans. The largest proportions of vessels 

conducting foreign trade and registering at New Orleans were schooners. Schooners accounted 

for 43 percent of the vessels, followed in quantity by brigs (24 percent), ships (23 percent), and 

sloops (6 percent) (Table 4.1). Though enrollment information for the period is incomplete, the 

existing data suggests the largest proportion of coastal trade (enrollment) was conducted by keel 

boats (29 percent), boats (22 percent), barges (22 percent), and steamboats (18 percent). These 

vessels account for a combined 92 percent of the coastal traffic; only 21 schooners (7 percent) 

and three sloops (1 percent) are enrolled solely for the purpose of this trade. Other vessels 

disembarking from New Orleans include feluccas, barks, ketches, a lugger, and a snow. The 

variety of vessels at the Port of New Orleans is illustrated in an 1820 engraving (Figure 4.2). 

Table 4.1 

Vessels at New Orleans, 1804–1820 

Registered (604) Enrolled (319) 

Barge 2 Barge 70 

Bark 2 Batteau 1 

Brig 146 Boat 71 

Felucca 7 Flat boat 2 

Galliot 1 Keel boat 93 

Lugger 1 Schooner 21 

Ketch 2 Sloop 3 

Pettiauger 1 Steamboat 58 

Schooner 260 

Ship 140 

Sloop 37 

Snow 1 

Steamboat 4 
56

Figure 4.2. Nouvelle Orléans, ca. 1820 (source: Himely and Hocquart after Ambroise Louis Garnerai , ca. 

1834, courtesy of The Historic New Orleans Collection, accession number 1940.4). 

The ship was the largest sailing vessel type used in the transportation of cargo to New 

Orleans. The bulk of the commercial traffic emanating from the port was smaller vessels, such 

as schooners, and as the nineteenth century progressed, fewer ships would be constructed to 

conduct trade. The geomorphology of the Gulf coast, with its predominately shallow ports and 

shifting sandbars, was less inviting to larger vessels and may have encouraged the use of 

schooners and sloops. The peak years for the construction of ships occurred between 1806 and 

1810, after which it declined, though the use of the port continued to increase (Figure 4.3). 

Figure 4.3. Summary of tabular data in New Orleans Registers and Enrollments vol. 1-5 (1804–1850). 
57

Ships ranged in size from 147–414 tons, with the exception of one large vessel, the 127-ft 

Horatio (609 tons) (WPA 1941:no. 425; this vessel was not used to access averages). The 

average size of a registered ship was 91.15 X 25.82 X 12.95 ft with a displacement of 272 tons 

(Table 4.2). This is slightly larger than the average for ships hailing from Gulf area ports based 

on the registration data. A majority of the vessels were described as having two decks, three 

masts, a square stern, and bow ornamentation, including a fiddlehead, a billethead, male or 

female figureheads, and, occasionally, an unusual item such as an alligator head (WPA 1941:no. 

62). Vessels with a single or flush deck do sometimes occur in the registers along with more 

obsolete hull features such as quarter galleries. Nine ships with this feature were built between 

1794 and 1805; two were built in 1810 and 1814 (WPA 1941: nos. 655, 176, 69, 799, 33, 131, 

362, 373, 344, 414, and 425). 

The brig was slightly smaller than the ship and was frequently characterized as having 

one deck, two masts, and a square stern. Like the ship, the brig had bow ornamentation that 

included billetheads, fiddleheads, and figureheads (WPA 1941: no 720 and 628). The average 

dimension for a brig registered at New Orleans was 76.29 X 22.81 X 10.87 ft and 173 tons 

(Table 4.2). Brigs were predominately constructed in the northeastern United States (66 percent) 

and were the most numerous of the vessel types produced in their shipyards. Only 21 brigs were 

produced by shipbuilders in the southern United States, and only one was built in the Gulf (Table 

4.2). Unlike the ship, however, the production of the brig was relatively constant throughout the 

period. The peak in brig construction occurred in 1810, and twelve were launched between 1816 

and 1820 (see Figure 4.3). 

The predominate vessel for New Orleans maritime commerce was the schooner. Not 

only was the schooner the most numerous type of vessel registered at New Orleans (260: 43 

percent), but it was also the most frequently produced watercraft launched from Gulf shipyards. 

Seventy schooners were built by Gulf shipwrights; 17 of these were from New Orleans. Of the 

350 vessels claiming New Orleans as their home port, over half were schooners (179, Table 4.2). 

Schooners registered at New Orleans were on average 59.55 X 17.71 X 6.74 ft and 69 

tons, (Table 4.2), though the range in size was from 8 tons to over 200. The schooners 

constructed in the northeastern and southern states were above average in size, averaging 

between 80 and 90 tons and 65 ft in length. Vessels constructed in the Gulf were diminutive 

compared to those on the east coast; the average size was 48.74 X 14.34 X 4.84 ft and 32 tons. 

Many of these vessels were alternately registered and enrolled, therefore able to conduct both 

coastal and foreign trade. The small size of these vessels may be indicative of their versatility of 

use in Gulf trade. 

Schooners constructed on the Gulf Coast and enrolled in coastal trade were similarly 

small and were approximately the same dimensions as the registered schooners and enrolled 

sloops. The average dimension of the coastal schooner was 53.26 X 14.82 X 4.69ft and 32 tons. 

Enrolled schooners generally varied from 20.21–52.77 tons, with the exception of one schooner 

that displaced 63 tons. According to Goldberg (1976:77), colonial coastal vessels were 

constructed to displace between 20–40 tons and seagoing vessels were larger than 50 tons. 

Although coastal craft built in Gulf shipbuilding communities somewhat conform to this 

observation, seagoing, registered schooners could range in size from eight to over 200 tons. 
58
59

The small schooner was generally less ornamented than the larger brig and ship. 

Schooners are predominately characterized as having one deck, two masts and a square stern, 

though a two-decked example (65-ft Hannah, 1801) and those with quarter galleries (44-ft 

Caroline, 49-ft John) were sometimes registered at the port (WPA 1941:nos. 383, 125, and 477). 

Periodically these vessels were adorned with a billethead, figurehead, or scrollhead, but this 

practice was uncommon. 

Five schooners at New Orleans were three-masted vessels. This characteristic is a normal 

feature for ships and occasionally occurred on large vessels such as the lugger and bark. In 

1816, John C. Chambers constructed a three-masted schooner for Pierre Lafitte (WPA 1941:no. 

317). The other four three-masted schooners were built between 1800 and 1808 in Ohio, Maine, 

West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (WPA 1941:nos 423, 383, 508, 688). Two of these schooners 

hailed from Massachusetts, and three were from Gulf ports. The vessel constructed for Pierre 

Lafitte in 1816 is surprisingly small for the number of masts, with dimensions of 43.42 X 13.42 

X 4.35ft and a 21.25 ton displacement. The small size, low tonnage, and amount of canvas 

would have made this a quick sailor and a vessel well-suited for privateering. 

The increase in schooner construction for vessels registered at New Orleans began 

between 1796 and 1800 (see Figure 4.3). Thirteen schooners were built during that five-year 

period. Between 1781 and 1795, only 6 schooners were built. Schooners were the dominant 

vessel type constructed during the study period and accounted for 52 percent of the vessels built 

between 1801 and 1830. The production of schooners continued to increase exponentially 

throughout the period during the time the construction of ships was in decline. 

A shipbuilding contract from New Orleans in 1769 may elucidate the construction of 

topsail schooner-type vessels used in the Gulf of Mexico. The vessel was contracted by Mr. 

Toutant Beauregard, a merchant and ship owner from New Orleans, with the shipbuilder Jean 

Verret. The finished two-masted vessel was to measure 60 ft in keel length; 23'10" great beams 

(maximum breadth); 73 ft end to end with a between deck 3'10" high bridge over keel; a hold of 

floor timber 9 ft under beam; a rudder with a back cut of 15 inches; and a measurement of 6'6" 

draught. The main masts were to be positioned 5 ft apart with an elevation of 15 in according to 

the sheer aft. The shipwright was to make a room 6 ft high of flat floor timber. The shipwright 

was to “furnish one negro” for all the joiners work and that this gentleman was to be supplied 

with moulds and proportions for the masts, yards, cutwater driver boom, drops, topsail booms 

and etc. At the signing of the contract, Mr. Beauregard had submitted the first payment for the 

vessel, in the sum of six hundred and sixty livres thirteen sols (Approximately $120 U.S. dollars) 

(Porteous 1928: 593–594). 

Several Gulf-area shipwrights are mentioned in the enrollments, which was an 

uncommon practice. The largest number of vessels, three schooners, is attributed to shipwright 

Juan Mariana Aranburn of Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. Aranburn constructed three schooners 

between 20 and 37 tons. His schooners were an average size of 47.9 X 16.5 X 6.69 ft. Peter 

Burton, Michael Francois Rouvant, and John C. Chambers were three of the shipbuilders 

operating in New Orleans (WPA 1941: nos. 317, 528, 595). 

In addition, the survey of a damaged schooner at New Orleans, Charlotte, offers some 

description of schooner construction. The schooner had sustained damage to the frame during the 

loading of wood at Cayviete and was found to have extensive leaks. During the investigation of 

this damage, it was also discovered that the foremast was rotted at the coupling, and there was 
60

rotting of the main mast, halyards’ cleats, and the hoops of the driver boom. It was also 

determined that the mainsail, fore-staysail, cross-pack sail and fore-topsail needed replacing as 

well as half the deck timbers. In order to strengthen the vessel it was suggested to add two breast 

hooks to the forepart of the vessel; to change four timbers on the starboard deck fore and aft; to 

change six timbers larboard on the deck; to repair the starboard and larboard hand-rail at the 

joining of one piece only of about two inches by six inches long (to make the fore part of the 

main mast level); to recover the deck; to nail the planks again; and to change the larboard pump 

and renovate the starboard pump and two pump-breakers. The vessel was to be condemned if the 

repairs were not made to the schooner (Porteous 1930:230-232). 

Sloops were one of the smallest vessel types enrolled for foreign trade. Sloops were, on 

the average, smaller than schooners and had one single mast. On the East Coast, the difference 

in scale between the schooner and sloop was approximately 12–13 ft in length, 1–3 ft in breadth 

and 1 ft in depth; the difference in displacement was 30 tons. Schooners and sloops constructed 

in Gulf ports were, on average, almost identical in size, varying only by a few feet for any 

dimension. The average sloop was just four tons lighter. 

The largest percentage of vessels registered at New Orleans was built in the Northeastern 

United States (50 percent of all the vessels, 62 percent of the total ships, 66 percent of brigs, 33 

percent of schooners). The northeastern U.S. is defined, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, as 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New 

Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Vessels constructed in the northeastern states were larger than those 

produced in the southern states, which were, in turn, larger than those produced in the Gulf 

territories. This trend in shipbuilding carried through all vessel types. Vessels launched from 

southern shipyards were only slightly smaller in scale, though the schooner, brig, and sloop were 

all approximately 10 tons lighter than their northeastern counterparts; the average ship was 

lighter by 23 tons. Shipbuilders in the Gulf did not produce any ships, and only one brig of 149 

tons displacement was launched. New Orleans, Bayou Saint John, Bonfouca, and Tchefuncta 

produced the largest number of vessels in the Gulf (Table 4.3); the locations of these and other 

Gulf shipbuilding communities are illustrated in Figure 4.4. 

4.7.2 International Vessels 

An annotated database study maintained by the author (Borgens, Gulf of Mexico Ship 

Database) is focused on maritime commerce in the Gulf of Mexico for the first half of the 

nineteenth century. It is drawn from archival research and primary and secondary source 

material (over 200 references) and is independent of the New Orleans Registers and Enrollment. 

This resource was used to supplement vessel information derived from other sources. For this 

study, vessels engaged in maritime activity between 1800 and 1830 were reviewed, as the 

construction date for many vessels is unknown. Those operating in the 1830s could have been in 

use in the preceding decades. The database includes 567 vessels whose period of use is between 

1800 and 1830. The database study is somewhat Amerocentric in that its focus is mainly on the 

interaction of international vessels with the Gulf territories primarily west of, and including 

Louisiana. The database study is ongoing and the current findings are merely a general 

representation of maritime activity in the Gulf. 

A vessel’s nationality was not inalterable, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. Foreign 

allegiances and ownership changed; vessels were sold and captured. The national affiliation of 

the ships and vessels in the study were assigned based on the most recent appearance in the 
61

historical record. The immense privateering activities in the Gulf can create some confusion in 

territorial affiliations. Vessels listed in Table 4.4 as hailing from Galveston Island during its 

brief tenure as a Mexican Republic were also interchangeably referred to as Mexican, 

Cartagenan and Columbian vessels, though the latter examples could also be independent of the 

Galveston operation. Vessels from Guadaloupe were frequently privateers carrying French 

letters of marque and could therefore be classified as French vessels. Notwithstanding, a 

majority of the vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico were from the United States, Britain, or 

Spain. Collectively the vessels from Cartagena, Mexico (at Galveston), Grenada, and Columbia, 

the source of privateer commissions, outnumber Spanish vessels in the region. This calculation 

is biased by the source material which cannot account for all the Spanish merchant ships 

conducting trade with the Spanish provinces. 

Table 4.3 

State and Municipal Shipbuilding Quantities 

Vessel Quantities by State Vessel Quantities by City 

Massachusetts 88 New Orleans, LA 23 

Louisiana 65 Philadelphia, PA 14 

Maine 61 Pittsburgh, PA 14 

Connecticut 57 Baltimore, MD 13 

Maryland 40 

Dorchester (County), 

MD 13 

Virginia 31 Marietta, OH 13 

Pennsylvania 30 New York, NY 12 

New York 28 Bayou St. John, LA 11 

North Carolina 21 

Mathews (County), 

VA 10 

Ohio 20 Saybrook, CN 10 

New Jersey 19 Bonfouca, LA 8 

Mississippi 15 Kennebunk, ME 8 

Kentucky 11 Newburyport, MA 8 

Rhode Island 10 Tchefuncta, LA 8 

New Hampshire 9 Bay St. Louis, MS 7 

Alabama 4 Pascagoula, MS 7 

South Carolina 4 Hallowell, ME 7 

Delaware 2 Barnstable, MA 6 

Tennessee 2 Bath, ME 6 

West Virginia 2 Norfolk, VA 6 

A variety of vessels plied the Gulf waters, from small pilot boats to ships-of-the-line. 

Schooners were the most frequently utilized watercraft, accounting for 30 percent of the 

maritime traffic, followed by brigs, frigates, and ships (12 percent, 9 percent, and 6 percent, 

respectively). Four hundred and twenty-six vessels were identifiable by vessel type; 188 of these 

(44 percent) were armed, suggesting they were either military vessels, privateers, or were 

defensively outfitted. At least 64 vessels (15 percent) were constructed specifically for naval 

combat, such as gunboats, corvettes, frigates, and ships-of-war. 
62

Figure 4.4. Shipbuilding locations in the Gulf of Mexico (illustration by A. Borgens, after Anonymous 1877). 

A fluid commerce was ongoing in the Gulf of Mexico; a variety of merchandise was 

transported across its waters. Major exports from New Orleans included cotton, tobacco, coffee, 

and sugar. Other items transported from the port were sundry products such as flour, pork, and 

butter, candles, corn, bearskins, ostrich feathers, rooster feathers, hats, vests, shoes, knives, 

munitions (Bauer 1988:128; De Grummond 1961:62; Mississippi Messenger 11 February 1808). 

These items were sometimes shipped in large quantities such as the cargo of Two Friends, on 16 

November 1810, that cleared for Cuba carrying 10 barrels of flour, 10 barrels of beans, 20 

barrels of pork, 20 barrels of beef, 150 barrels of pilot biscuit, 2 barrels of red wine, 20 barrels of 

whiskey, and 3 barrels of chewing tobacco (Faye 1940b:824). 

The vessel Cleopatra was captured by a privateer en route to the Gulf from Spain in 1815 

and was recaptured by a U.S. vessel. Cargo from the vessel included 1,953 barrels of flour, 

1,830 pipes of red wine, one ullage (partially filled cask) of red wine, 6.5 more casks of red 

wine, 6 barrels of white wine sugar, 45 boxes of vermicelli, 15 cases of hats, 13 boxes of glass, 

22 barrels of peas, oil, silks, laces, veils, perfumery, and tooth powder (De Grummond 

1961:133–134). Other products shipped to Mexico included aguardiente (alcoholic beverage 

made from sugar cane), iron, wine, oils, and almonds (Bidwell 1960: 495). 

One of the principal exports from Mexico and Latin America was specie, due in part to 

rich silver resources. After a twenty-year stagnation in silver mining, the industry experienced a 

boom in the last decades of the eighteenth century (Ponzio 2006:2, 4). Silver was extracted by 

private firms and sent to coinage houses. Silver production was 13 million pesos from 1750–

1775, 18 million by the end of the 1770s, and over 20 million by the mid-1790s (Ponzio 2006:5). 

In the late eighteenth century, Spain financed its colonial state by shipping silver from 

New Spain to Cuba where it was redistributed to Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico, Florida and 

Louisiana (Irigion 2003:10). A majority of the Treasury in Cuba (75 percent) was situado from 

New Spain. During the war with England from 1779–1783, this amounted to at least 37 million 

pesos (Irigion 2003:9–10). By 1821, 80 percent of Peruvian exports were silver (in millions of 

silver bars and coins). In the 1820s, Mexico traded silver to the United States in exchange for 
63

primary imports such as manufactured cloth, raw cotton, and wheat flour coming through New 

Orleans (Salvucci 2006). 

Table 4.4 

Summary of Foreign Vessels Operating in the Gulf of Mexico, 1800–1830 

Mexican silver coinage was shipped in large quantities, creating irresistible targets for 

privateers. The Spanish brig Nueva Dolores was captured off the Balize by three privateers on 

29 May 1813. The cargo of 20,000 silver coins was stolen (Faye 1939:1070). An unnamed prize

of William Mitchell arrived at Galveston in 1816 with a cargo of $170,000 in specie and 

approximately 800 seroons of indigo (Davis 2005: 255). Two million pesos were part of the 

cargo on the English sloop-of-war Tay that was bound from Campeche to Jamaica in 1816. The 

vessel wrecked on the Alacrán Reef on 11 November 1816, though all 135 crew were saved 
64

(Marx 1981:63; Gilly 1850, 330). The Columbian vessel Independiente was transporting 57,849 

pesos and 6 reales when the vessel was engaged by the Spanish corvette Ceres in 1823. 

Independiente was damaged and withdrew from the fighting (De Grummond 1961:209). 

After silver, the most important Mexican export for over 300 years, up until 1850, was 

the dye cochineal (Marichal 2001:2). Other goods exported from Mexico were grain, indigo, 

sugar, dyewood, and salt (Faye 1939:1023; Davis 2005:446). Goods exported from northeastern 

ports in Mexico in the mid 1820s, in addition to specie, included mules, hides, and wool (United 

States Consulate 1906). 

The major exports from Cuba were sugar and coffee (Rothman 2005: 91). Cargos 

shipped from Cuba to the United States could contain merchandise such as tortoiseshell, 

mahogany, logwood, coffee wax, molasses, paper, and dry goods (Davis 2005:139; De 

Grummond 1961: 59, 64; The Edinburgh Advertiser 11 November 1822). 

4.7.3 Naval Vessels 

Spain and the United States maintained small standing fleets in the Gulf of Mexico. The 

naval vessels regularly policing the Gulf coast were well-suited for the region and were primarily 

comprised of schooners and gunboats. Expeditionary forces sent by Spain, France, and Britain 

included large rated vessels, though these vessels were ill-adapted to navigate the shallow ports 

and entrance bars characteristic of the coast. The British naval attack on New Orleans at Lake 

Borgne, for example, was executed not by large purpose-built warships, but by 42 oared 

longboats, each mounted with a single cannon (Owsley 1981:139). It is conjectured that the 

British loss at New Orleans was due, in part, to Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane’s inability to 

secure enough shallow-draft vessels for the expedition, thwarting his plan to attack from the 

north of the city through Lake Pontchartrain (Owsley 1981:191). 

The regular U.S. naval presence in the Gulf largely consisted of vessels operating out of 

the New Orleans Naval Station. This squadron was initially composed of fifteen gunboats that 

were divided into four divisions: Balize, Barataria, River, and Lake. These vessels’ areas of 

responsibility were the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi River. The gunboats were given 

numeric designations, though some additionally were named such as gunboat No. 166, Alligator. 

These small boats may have been similar to New Orleans Naval Station gunboat No. 21 that was 

sloop rigged with two 24-pounders (Smith 2000:14–15). 

Shortly after the outbreak of war with Britain, a series of storms and a hurricane 

grounded a naval brig and sent four gunboats ashore. The New Orleans Naval Station never did 

fully recover from these losses (Smith 2000:21). Captain John Shaw redistributed the remaining 

gunboat fleet to defend the Gulf territories by sending three gunboats to Mobile Bay, two to the 

Rigolets (passage from New Orleans to the east), and five to the Balize (Smith 2000:20). In late 

1813, Commodore Daniel Patterson replaced Shaw and inherited an operational squadron of only 

five gunboats in addition to the cutter/sloop Louisiana, the 14-gun schooner Carolina (Caroline), 

and the tender/dispatch boat/schooner Seahorse (Sea Horse) (De Grummond 1961:90–91; Smith 

2000: 23). Louisiana, Carolina, the gunboats and Seahorse attacked the privateer encampment at 

Barataria in 1814. Patterson supplemented his small force with captured prizes (De Grummond 

1961:90–91; Davis 2005:77,124). By the time of the British assault on Lake Borgne, the Naval 

Station had Carolina, Seahorse, gunboats nos. 5, 23, 65, 156 (Commodore) 162, 163, and 166 

(Alligator) an armed launch, three armed barges, Firebrand (captured at Barataria), and the prize 
65

schooner Peter from New Orleans (Smith 2000:24–25). Historic documentation suggests the 

U.S. Navy vessels at New Orleans were armed with 12-pounder and 24-pounder cannon and 

carronades (Table 4.5). 

Table 4.5 

Armament of U.S. Naval Vessels 

ID Vessel Name Nationality Vessel 

Type Armament Tonnage 

1398 Louisiana U.S. Cutter, 

ship-Sloop 

Four 24-pounders, eight 12-pounders, 

and four 6-pounders (De Grummond 

and Morazan 1961:90–91) 

100 

1374 Bulldog (Bull 

Dog) U.S. Felucca Two 12-pounder cannon (Davis 2005:403) 

1397 Lynx U.S. Schooner One long 12-pounder, six 12-pounder 

carronades (Kendall 1925:349) 

1325 Caroline 

(Carolina) U.S. Schooner 

Twelve 12-pounder carronades and 

three long nines (De Grummond and 

Morazan 1961:90). 

84 

Five gunboats (one of which was Commodore) and the tender Alligator were attacked 

and captured by the British at the Battle of Borgne on 14 December 1814 (Owsley 1981:129). 

The vessel Caroline was later destroyed during the British offensive at the Battle of New Orleans 

in December 1814. With the capture of the gunboats and the destruction of Caroline more U.S. 

vessels were dispatched to New Orleans. Tickler and the felucca Bulldog were sent in pursuit of 

Job Northrop's privateer Independence in late 1816 (Davis 2005:314). By 1818, the vessel 

Prometheus was at the New Orleans Naval Station and was described as too decayed to repair. 

Bulldog and Louisiana were still stationed off Barataria in 1819, in addition to the schooner

Lynx, and the vessels Hornet and Surprise. One additional cutter, Alabama, was operating in 

concert with Louisiana in 1819, capturing privateer vessels off the coast (Davis 2005:314, 

304,404). 

Beginning in 1821, the U.S. government assigned a squadron, consisting of schooners, 

gunboats, and other vessels, to attack piratical vessels in the Gulf, Gulf Stream, and West Indies 

(The Edinburgh Advertiser 9 November 1821). The U.S. sloop-of-war Peacock and schooner 

Alligator were engaged in this service off Matazanas, Cuba in 1822. Peacock captured the 

American privateer Stalling and Captain Allen, of Alligator, was killed when his ship’s boat 

approached a 5-gun, 80-ton pirate schooner near Matazanas during October 1823. The pirates 

abandoned their vessel, taking to the ship’s boats; five sailing vessels were saved from capture 

(The Times 9 January 1823). 

Four schooners registered at New Orleans between 1815 and 1819 were former U.S. 

gunboats (Table 4.6). The dimensions for these vessels are very similar, suggesting standardized 

naval construction (WPA 1942:62, 67, 104, 106). These vessels may be indicative of the U.S. 

gunboats operating in the Gulf of Mexico in the early nineteenth century. 

At the turn of the century, Spanish colonial governments maintained coast guard 

squadrons, guardacostas, with headquarters at the Mississippi Balize, Veracruz, and Havana. 

These local squadrons were likely similar to that stationed at the Balize, which was comprised of 

galeras (galleys and gunboats) and the slow-sailing schooner Catalina. Veracruz and Havana 
66

supplemented their mosquito fleets with colonial schooners and brigs. These coastal patrols 

were a branch of the army and were primarily directed against smugglers (Faye 1940a:429). 

Table 4.6 

Former U.S. Gunboats Registered at New Orleans 

No. Name Type Home Port Tonnage Length Breadth Depth 

408 Hero Schooner New Orleans, LA 35 51.75 16.58 4.83 

434 Imperial Schooner Bayou St. John, LA 38 56.83 16.25 4.75 

687 Pegasus Schooner New Orleans, LA 36 51.67 16.50 5.00 

707 Polar Star Schooner New Orleans, LA 38 56.00 16.33 4.83 

Until 1805, vessels from Spain’s peninsular fleet could easily be dispatched as needed to 

cruise in American waters (Faye 1940a:429). During the Napoleonic Wars, however, Spain 

lacked maritime resources, as the navy had become bankrupt having fought first one side, then 

the other. In 1814, with the defeat of Napoleon, Spain focused on quelling the insurgencies in 

Latin American (Scheina 1987:1). In December 1814, a large naval fleet, consisting of 42 

transports and 18 warships disembarked to South America. Part of this fleet was redirected to 

engage the privateer fleet at Cartagena in July 1815 (Scheina 2003:30–31). 

After Mexico successfully secured its independence in 1821, it inherited many vessels of 

the Spanish Navy, including one ship-of-the-line. Fear of Spanish reprisals induced the Mexican 

government to purchase six gunboats and two sloops-of-war in the United States (Ward 

1828:307). These vessels comprised the Mexican Navy in 1823. The size of the navy was 

gradually increased so that, by January of 1827, the fleet consisted of one ship-of-the-line 

(Congreso Mexicano), two frigates (Libertad and Tepeyac), four brigs-of-war (Guerrero, 

Victoria, Bravo, Constante), a corvette (Morelos), a schooner (Hermon), four gun boats, four 

large launches, and two pilot boats (Ward 1828:307–308). In 1827, the British Chargé d' affairs 

in Mexico remarked that, in time, the Mexican government would recognize that a few 'light' 

vessels would be all that they required (Ward 1828:309). 

British warships were frequently employed in the Gulf of Mexico to protect mercantile 

shipping. The expedition to capture New Orleans in 1814 demonstrates the types of naval craft 

utilized by the British in the region. The vessels of the British fleet rendezvoused at Jamaica in 

November 1814, prior to disembarking for the Louisiana coast. The fleet consisted of the 80-gun 

ship Tonnant, the 74-gun ships Royal Oak, Plantagent, and Vengeur, the 18-gun brig-sloop 

Sophie, and the 38-gun frigate Seahorse (Smith 2004:32, 57, 59, 67). The large ships could not 

ascend the bay, so the ship’s longboats disembarked to engage the U.S. gunboats, rowing for a 

total of 36 hours before reaching their targets. The 42 longboats carried 1,200 sailors, and each 

mounted a carronade in the bow, a typical feature of a nineteenth-century ship’s boat (Owsley 

1981:137–139; Cow 1984:72 [1841]). After the loss of the Battle of New Orleans, the British 

vessels withdrew to attack Fort Bowyer. Other British naval vessels countering American efforts 

in Alabama and Apalachicola in January 1815 included Etna, a bomb (mortar) vessel, the ships 

Grinder, Mars, Florida, and the sloop Erebus (Owsley 1981:171, 173, and 176). 
67

In the 1820s, the British government sent additional gunships to Cuba as a means of 

dispelling coast-wise piracy and smuggling. The vessels Seringapatam of 46 guns, C.B. 

Redwing of 18 guns and the schooner Grecian arrived at Havana in late November of 1822 and 

were given the authority to act jointly with the government of Cuba. The boats of Tyne, 26 guns, 

and the schooner Speedwell had already succeeded in capturing four pirate vessels at the port of 

El Callao. Concurrently, the British ship Hyperion was cruising in the Gulf of Mexico seeking 

privateers (The Times, 9 January 1823). 

4.7.4 Privateers and Slavers 

In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, more than 200 known privateers were 

seeking prizes in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Faye 1940a:433; De Grummond 1961:155). 

Both small and large schooners were typical privateer craft in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Privateer vessels sailing from the Atlantic Seaboard also 

included small square-rigged vessels (Faye 1940c:238). 

At least 165 vessels from the database for this period were privateers operating in the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Vessel type was not identified for fifty of these watercraft. 

The largest number of privateer vessels were schooners (61 of the 115 whose types were known), 

followed by brigs (15), feluccas (9), hermaphrodite brigs (6), frigates (6), pilotboats (5), 

corvettes (4), ships (3), and sloops (2). Seventy-seven total vessels were either a schooner or 

smaller craft. Privateer vessels can be difficult to track in the historical record because different 

vessels could frequently have the same name. A privateer commission was assigned to a specific 

vessel. If a ship sank, for example, another vessel would be given the same name in order to 

commute the letter of marque. 

Speed was of considerable importance to the privateer, and the fastest-sailing vessels 

were sought after. The quickest of the schooners were those built as pilotboats (paileboate). 

These swift-sailing schooners were originally crafted in New England to meet incoming 

merchants with pilots to bring them into port. The vessels were small, with a well-designed hull 

that was quick without needing assistance from added topsails. Pilotboats had two simple spars 

and were devoid of a topsail (Faye 1940c:121). Figure 4.5 illustrates a typical New York pilot of 

the mid-nineteenth century. 

Feluccas were smaller than the pilotboats, were of a more shallow draft, and could have 

one or two masts. The rigging was either lateen sail (Caribbean) or lug sails (North Caribbean 

and the Gulf of Mexico). The vessel did not have a deck except for a small extent at the bow and 

stern. The term pirogue was sometimes used interchangeably to refer to this type of vessel. The 

pirogues at Barataria were undecked, or decked only at the bow and stern, and had two masts 

that could be unstepped. These small ‘smuggling barges’ were favored by privateers and were 

used for transporting goods brought to Barataria (Faye 1940c:122–123). 

The variety of vessels employed by privateers can be illustrated by the vessels stationed 

at Barataria. At 10:00am on 17 September 1814, Master Commandant Daniel Patterson 

conducted a U.S. Navy raid on the Baratarian privateer base. Patterson and the New Orleans 

fleet not only encountered schooners and prizes, but a large number of fleeing pirogues. U.S. 

Gunboat Number 162 opened fire against 20 pirogues anchored behind a sandbar at Grande 

Terre. By noon, Patterson possessed a felucca, six schooners, a brig, a prize, and two armed 

schooners (Wilgus 1925:201; Warren 1938a: 205; De Grummond 1961:153; Davis 2005:77, 
68

190). Twenty-seven vessels were in the bay and Patterson decided most were not worth keeping; 

he burned several, including two schooners and a brig (Davis 2005:191). Among the captured 

vessels were the schooners Dorada, purchased for the U.S. Navy, General Bolivar (renamed 

General Jackson), Misere, the 90-ton Harlequin, the 90-ton Surprise, the 50-ton Petite Milan, 

the felucca Fly, the 75-ton Comet, the 15-ton felucca Moon of November, and Amiable Maria

(Warren 1938a: 205; Davis 2005:192). 

Figure 4.5. Typical mid-nineteenth-century New York pilotboat (source: Harter 2003:78). 

Owners outfitting vessels for the Gulf balanced the driving power provided by square 

sails and the maneuverability of the fore and aft rig. Privateer vessels gained versatility by 

combining rigging types, the most common of which were the topsail schooner, the foretopsail 

schooner and the hermaphrodite brig (Faye 1940c:120). The U.S. Government forbade the 

outfitting of privateer vessels in U.S. ports, though this action did not deter these activities. Gulf 

privateer vessels were purchased and fitted out at U.S. ports such as Baltimore, New York, and 

New Orleans (Davis 2005: 97, 242; Warren 1938c:7–8; Faye 1940a: 436–437; Faye 1939:1032–

1033). Other locations used to illegally prepare these vessels for privateering included a location 

on the North Carolina coast, Terrebonne Bay in Louisiana, and Aux Cayes on Saint Dominique 

(Faye 1941:614; Davis 2005:26–27; Faye 1939:1026). 

Privateers mounted a variety of artillery types. According to Faye, small schooners and 

feluccas armed the crew with muskets rather than carrying small cannons. Few privateer 

schooners or brigs were big enough to be outfitted with guns larger than an 18-pounder cannon. 
69

Flat-bottomed gunboats could not safely mount more than a 24-pounder at the bow and at the 

stern (Faye 1940c:123). In 1804, it was observed that small privateer schooners were, for the 

most part, armed with one or two cannon (Faye 1940a:433) 

Table 4.7 

Privateer Armament 

ID Vessel Name Nationality Vessel Type Armament Tonnage 

908 Petite-Milan Cartagena Corsair 9-pounder and a pivot (Davis 

2005:236) 50 

1515 Boyacá Columbia Corvette 

Twenty 32-pound carronades, two 

short 32-pounder gunnades (De 

Grummond and Morazan 

1961:227) 

119 Bolívar Columbia Corvette 

Twenty-three 32-pound 

carronades, one long 12-pounder; 

25-gun; twenty-two 32-pounders 

and three 12-pounders (De 

Grummond and Morazan 

1961:227, 207, 203). 

1495 Sally Felucca One brass 8-pounder (Faye 

1940a:441) 

467 General Arismande Venezuela 

Hermaphrodite 

brig, topsail 

schooner 

One 18-pounder and six 12-

pounder carronades (Faye 

1939:1040) 

1342 Firebrand 

(Dorada) 

U.S., 

Cartagena 

Hermaphrodite 

brig, schooner 

Five cannon in 1814; one 6-

pounder and six 12-pounders; four 

12 pounders in 1818 (Davis 

2005:139, 310,403) 

1480 Incroyable Mexico Pilot boat One 9-pounder swivel (Faye 

1939:1063) 

1354 Nuestra Señora de 

la Popa (La Popa) Cartagena 

Privateer, 

hermaphrodite 

brig 

One 16-pounder, one 12-pounder, 

twelve 6-pounder carronades (Faye 

1939:1042) 

780 Misère, Guadaloupe Schooner 4-pounder swivel (Faye 

1939:1017). 40 

1483 Independence, 

Independencia Mexico Schooner One 6-pounder (Warren 1938b:810) 

1518 Antonia Manuela Columbia Schooner One 8-pounder (De Grummond 

and Morazan 1961: 208) 

1390 Two Friends Mexico 

(Galveston) Schooner Ten cannon (Davis 2005:369), two guns (Faye 1939:1088) 

698 Sarpis Cartagena Schooner Two 6-pounders (Faye 1939:1026) 

974 

Relanifrago, 

Relámpago (Éclair, 

éclair) 

Mexico Schooner Long brass gun, 18-pounder and an 

iron 9-pounder (Faye 1940c:118) 

1366 Rose Schooner Four 9-pounders (Faye 1939:1038) 
70

Table 4.7 (continued) 

Privateer Armament 

ID Vessel Name Nationality Vessel Type Armament Tonnage 

562 Hotspur Mexico 

(Galveston) Schooner One long brass 18-pounder, three long 9-pounders (Davis 2005:319) 

1474 Guerriere Cartagenan Schooner 

Two long 9-pounder, increased to 

include 4 more guns in 1819 (Faye 

1938:1033). 

1517 Leona Columbia Schooner 

One 18-pounder, four 4-pounders 

(De Grummond and Morazan 

1961:208) 

1361 Constitucion, 

Constitution Cartagenan Schooner 

One long-tom brass 18-pounder 

and four iron 8-pounders (Faye 

1939:1049) 

315 La Diligent Guadaloupe Schooner Twelve 14-pounder cannon (Davis 

2005:98) 136 

1410 General Santander Columbia Schooner 18-pounder, brass 4-pounder 

swivel (Davis 2005:406) 40 

118 

General Jackson, 

(La Caridad, 

General Bolívar) 

U.S., 

Cartagena, Schooner 

One long brass 18-pounder, one 

long brass 6-pounder, two 12-

pounders (Cusachs 1919:425) 

515 Félix (Jupiter, 

Piñérez) Cartagena Schooner, pilot boat 

One brass 9-pounder, increased to 

two guns (Faye 1939:1078) 83 

Twenty-three privateer vessels listed in the Gulf Ship Database have detailed descriptions 

of their armament (Table 4.7). Nine vessels, all schooners, were armed with two or fewer guns. 

A majority of the 23 privateers mounted four or more cannon, some with as many as 23 guns, 

inclusive of carronades. The Columbian corsairs Bolívar and Boyacá each mounted more than 

twenty 32-pounder carronades apiece (De Grummond 1961:227). Smaller vessels such as 

schooners, feluccas, and pilotboats were armed with between one and six cannons varying in size 

from 4-pounders to 18-pounders. Two large schooners, one of 136 tons, were armed with over 

ten cannon each. The armament on the privateers included long guns, swivel guns, and bronze 

(“brass”) cannon. “Brass” guns could better withstand the shock of recoil and therefore had 

greater range and accuracy than an iron gun equal of caliber and greater weight (Faye 

1940c:124). 

Slave trading was a lucrative business in the Gulf in the eighteenth and nineteenth 

centuries. Though privateers did not directly import the slaves themselves, they captured slavers 

and sold the cargo illegally at Barataria and through Galveston. Several New Orleans vessels 

(Table 4.8) were former slavers captured and condemned by the U.S. government. Vessels 

engaged in the importation of slaves included sloops, schooners, brigs, and ships. 

Slavers tended to tightly-pack their human cargo, since slaves sold for a substantial sum. 

A Spanish brig en route to Pensacola was captured, and its cargo of 140 African slaves was sold 

at Grande Terre. Many of the slaves were recovered and returned to the Spanish owner's agent in 

New Orleans (Faye 1940a:441). The Portuguese brig Mosquito was similarly captured by the 

privateer Guillaume and taken to the Balize in 1810. She was carrying a cargo of slaves from 

Brazil to Havana. While en route, the brig was apprehended by the U.S. Navy, and the slave 

cargo was sold privately for $18,000 (Faye 1940a:436). 
71

The vessel William arrived in Barataria from Guadeloupe in May 1810 with a cargo of 

208 slaves who were unloaded at Grand Terre; an additional 105 were transported to Bayou 

Lafourche and sold for $17,000 to Eugene Fortier (Davis 2005:59). Louis Aury and his vessel 

were captured in the Mississippi following this transaction. He was arrested but eventually 

acquitted on the charges of piracy. William was seized and sold (Davis 2005:59–60). This is 

likely the vessel William (Table G no. 905) that was first registered at New Orleans on 17 May 

1804 under owner William G. Garland. The brig at this time was captained by Peter N. Paillet 

who would also be associated with the brig Alexandrine and the ship Three Sisters, both of 

which were condemned for slave importation (Table G: nos. 23 and 843). Two of the first prizes 

to arrive at Galveston in 1817 after Lafitte assumed control were Petronille (Petronilla) and 

L'Enrequita. Petronille and L’Enrequita were carrying 174 and 113 slaves, respectively (Davis 

2005:326). 

Table 4.8 

Vessels Condemned for the Importation of Slaves 

ID Vessel 

Name 

Vessel 

Type 

Build 

Date Tonnage Length Breadth Depth Features 

23 Alexandrine Brig 101 70.16 20.67 8 One deck, two masts, round stern, 

billethead 

610 Mississippi Schooner 73 68.25 17.67 6.75 One deck, two masts, round stern 

838 Thorn Sloop 1809 58 57.33 19.5 6.21 One deck, one mast, square stern 

843 Three 

Sisters Ship 1811 404 104.5 29.75 14.88 Two decks, three masts, round stern 

883 Virginia Schooner 44 60.83 16.42 5.92 One deck, two masts, square stern 

905 William Brig 127 63.42 21.83 10.92 Two decks, two masts, square stern, 

man figurehead, round tuck 

Maritime commerce in the Gulf of Mexico in the early nineteenth century was international in 

character and included ships of varying nationalities and types. The predominant watercraft was 

the schooner, though smaller vessels such as the pilotboat, felucca, pirogue, and sloop were 

easily adapted for use along the Gulf coast. The volatility of the region made commerce 

dangerous; merchant vessels were vulnerable to piratical activities that characterized the region 

and for this reason were often armed. There was a large foreign naval presence in the Gulf as the 

European wars spread to the Americas often and countries sought to protect their commercial 

vessels. Eventually the crew size of a privateer would diminish in size, as the personnel were 

shifted to the prize vessels. By the end of a voyage, the crew of a privateer could easily resemble 

the size of a merchant crew. 

4.8 Crew Sizes in the Gulf of Mexico 

This is an incomplete study focused on select consular records from Matamoras, the 

nearest Mexican port to the U.S. Gulf territories, and Galveston. The Matamoras Consulate 

records for the years 1826, 1827, 1830, and 1833 were selected for review (United States 

Consulate at Matamoras 1906). The Consulate records at Matamoras in 1833 were the first of the 
72

available records, from that location, to separate crew as American or foreign. The consulate 

records from Galveston that were investigated date to 1838 and 1839 (United States Consulate 

1958a and 1958b). These were the earliest records from this archive available for review. U.S. 

Consulate Records dealt with U.S. vessels at what were, at the time, considered foreign ports. 

Between 1826 and 1827 twenty U.S. vessels, 19 schooners and one brig, arrived at 

Matamoras, Mexico. The single brig was 150 tons burden with a crew of nine. Schooners carried 

a crew of between four and eight men; the average crew size was 5.4. Table 4.9 summarizes the 

specific crew sizes for schooners, subdivided by tonnage range. 

Table 4.9 

Schooner Crew Sizes on U.S. Merchant Vessels in the Gulf of Mexico 

 30–50 tons 51–80 tons 81–100 tons 101–150 tons 151–200 tons 

 sample 

size 

crew 

size aver. sample size 

crew 

size aver. sample size 

crew 

size aver. sample size 

crew 

size aver. sample size 

crew 

size aver. 

Matamoras 

1826–27 10 4 to 6 4.8 2 5 5 4 4 to 8 6.3 3 5 to 8 6.7 

Matamoras 

1830 2 6 to 7 6.5 6 5 to 8 6.7 4 4 to 8 5.8 4 5 to 7 5.5 

Matamoras 

1833 6 5 to 6 5.6 11 3 to 8 6.3 2 4 to 6 5 

Galveston 

1838–39 7 2 to 5 3.3 13 2 to 6 4.5 21 4 to 8 5.8 9 4 to 7 5 2 5 5 

average 25 5.1 32 5.6 31 5.7 16 5.7 2 5 

In 1830, 26 different U.S. vessels arrived at Matamoras: five brigs, 17 schooners, and 

four sloops. The number of crew of a brig was between five and eight men (6.6 average); the 

schooner had four to eight crew (6.2 men average), and the sloop three to seven men (4.75 

average). 

Nineteen different U.S. schooners, two brigs, and a sloop disembarked at Matamoras in 

1830. The average overall crew for a schooner was 5.9 men. The brigs of 59 and 97 tons burden 

carried crew of four to seven men respectively; the sole sloop of 49 tons had a crew of five. 

There were a total of 129 men assigned to the U.S. vessels at Matamoras in 1830; 17 of this crew 

were considered foreigners (13 percent). Eleven of the 19 schooners (58 percent) had foreign 

crew members. 

Galveston was capable of handling larger vessels than Matamoras, which is discernible in 

the proportion of larger to small ton schooners at this port. Between November of 1838 and June 

of 1839, approximately 58 sailing vessels arrived at port including eight brigs, 45 schooners, and 

two sloops. The crews of the brigs, ranging in size from 93 to 186 tons, were between six and 

nine men. Schooners carried between four and seven men with an overall average of 5.1. 

Nineteen of the 58 schooners (33 percent) had at least one foreign crew member. The total crew 

for all 45 schooners was 264 men, of which 23 were described as foreigners (9 percent). The two 

sloops of five tons had a crew of two to three men. 

Eleven of the 19 schooners that arrived at Matamoras between 1826 and 1827 could 

definitively be linked to vessels in the New Orleans Enrollments and Registers (WPA 1942) by 

both master and tonnage. The vessels within the 30 to 50 ton range, nine vessels, measured 
73

between 44 and 68 feet (13.4–20.7 m) in length. The remaining two vessels were 53 and 55 tons, 

measuring 63 feet 2 inches (19.3 m) and 58 feet (17.7 m), respectively. Both these latter vessels 

had crews of five men. Four of the vessels were between 60 and 68 feet (18.3–20.7 m), these 

vessels had crews of five to six men. The smaller schooners, varying from 44 to 51 feet (13.4–

15.5 m) in length, had crews of four to five men. Though smaller vessels appear to have smaller 

crews and larger schooners, larger crews, this relationship was not always proportional. 

The records demonstrate that merchant schooners most of the time carried between four 

and six crew members. Overall the average crew size was about five men regardless of tonnage. 

It also appears that vessels conducting trade with ports of predominately non-English speaking 

inhabitants had a larger ratio of foreign crews per vessel to that port. 

Comparable sized privateer schooners, often armed with one to two guns, often had 

larger variable crew sizes than the merchant vessels. This was to facilitate the capture and 

transport of prize vessels. After capturing a series of prizes, the vessel’s own crew would be 

depleted and eventually reduced to a ‘normal’ size. Several privateers from Cartagena and 

Venezuela were observed and described by Beverly Chew in 1817 while anchored at New 

Orleans (Chew 1817). Four vessels were armed with only one to two guns but carried crews of 

18 to 50 men. One of these vessels was the schooner Calibra armed with one swivel gun and a 

crew of 30. Another of the small armed craft was the two-gun felucca Esperanza that was armed 

with two guns and a crew of 18. One vessel of three guns, the 90-ft (27.4-m) schooner Eugene

(230 tons), had a crew of 60 men; though the five-gun Victory and six-gun, 55-ft (16.8-m) 

schooner Diana (61 tons) had smaller crews of 50 and 40 men (WPA 1941:33, 42). 

4.9 Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Patterns 

Bascom argues that, of all the wooden ships ever built, approximately 50 percent 

wrecked, and, of the half that wrecked, 80 percent did so by running aground or having “some 

other shallow-water mishap” (Bascom 1976:84). The remaining ten percent of ships, including 

the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, require some other explanation for their demise. The above 

discussion of political unrest and piracy in the Gulf of Mexico certainly indicates that human 

violence may have been a cause for the wrecking of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. However, the 

wreck remains did not contain any direct evidence of loss through attack. Another possible 

exterior force that may have caused the Mardi Gras ship to wreck was a hurricane. Much of the 

historic shipping season occurred during the hurricane season of June through November, when 

tropical storms (winds of 34 to 64 knots) and hurricanes (winds greater than 64 knots) regularly 

pass through the Gulf. While the occurrence of hurricanes and tropical storms is statistically 

low, only 7.5 storms and one hurricane per year, a correlation between hurricanes and 

shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico has been noted (Garrison 1989a, 1989b; Lugo-Fernández et al. 

2007). However, it is difficult to correlate single shipwrecks with specific storms, due to the low 

resolution of the archaeological record and the lack of good hurricane path data prior to the late 

nineteenth century (Garrison 1989a; NOAA 2006b). Despite this difficulty, a summary of 

known Gulf of Mexico hurricanes between 1794 and 1831 (Table 4.10) does suggest the 

frequency and power of these storms. 
74

Table 4.10 

Summary of Eastern Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes, 1794–1831 

Date Landfall Description Source 

1–8 October 1794 Western Florida Hurricane Sandrik and Landsea 2003 

1811 New Orleans Hurricane Roth 2003 

19 August 1812 New Orleans 

Worst hurricane in several years. Resulted in 

significant damage to naval and commercial vessels. 

At least 53 vessels damaged 

Dudley and Crawford 1985; Roth 

2003 

19 August 1813 Louisiana Hurricane Roth 2003 

7 August 1817 Apalachicola Bay Tropical Storm Sandrik and Landsea 2003 

25–28 July 1819 Bay St. Louis 

Hurricane. 70 ships, including schooner Thomas 

Shields, schooner Hooke, Sloop James, schooner 

Henrietta and US Navy schooner Firebrand, 

destroyed. 

Roth 2003; Orleans Gazette 29 

August 1819 

September 1819 

Between New 

Orleans and 

Apalachicola Tropical Storm Barnes 1998 

15 September 1821 Bay St. Louis Hurricane Ludlum 1963; Roth 2003 

8 July 1822 Mississippi Tropical Storm Ludlum 1963 

2 July 1825 Apalachicola Bay Tropical Storm Sandrik and Landsea 2003 

16–17 August 1831 Baton Rouge Very destructive hurricane Roth 2003 

28–29 August 1831 

Southwest 

Louisiana Tropical Storm Roth 2003 
75 

5.0 Results 

By Ben Ford with contributions by Amy Borgens and Dr. Dawn Marshall 

5.1 Site Layout 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck consisted of a northwest-southeast oriented linear artifact 

distribution measuring 48.5 X 14.3 ft (14.8 X 4.4 m) (Figure 5.1). The principal features of the 

site included an iron anchor, a cannon, a cast-iron stove, a box of assorted weapons, a dense 

cluster of artifacts, and a bulbous concretion. All of the artifacts and site components are 

described below, but the general site layout is as follows. The northernmost identifiable artifact, 

the anchor, was not recovered and remains partially buried on the seafloor. Immediately 

southeast of the anchor were several badly-concreted artifacts that include a ring, a “T” shaped 

piece of iron, and at least two long and thin artifacts. These artifacts may be a wood anchor 

stock and the crown of a second anchor. South of these artifacts was a second linear iron-stained 

artifact that forms the southwestern boundary of the artifact scatter. This artifact and the scatter 

of smaller items in its vicinity were not recovered and are of unknown function. East of this 

artifact was the cannon lying along a southeast-northwest orientation and partially attached to a 

large triangular concretion. This concretion, measuring approximately 14.7 X 4.6 ft (3.5 X 1.4 

m), also contained several unidentified and badly-concreted iron artifacts, a substantial number 

of iron cannonballs, a stoneware jug, and possible hull structure. The ship’s stove and associated 

lead sheeting were situated along the western edge of this large concretion, and a bulkhead 

formed its southeastern margin. Contiguous with, and partially concreted to, the bulkhead was a 

chest of assorted weapons, including long-arms, pistols, and swords. Beginning at the 

southeastern side of the weapons box and extending to the bulbous concretion was a dense 

scatter of artifacts, including two varieties of glass bottles, creamware serving and table wares, 

navigational instruments, tools, and other artifacts. This scatter appeared as two distinct 

distributions on the surface; however, the entire area was not excavated, and it is possible that the 

two scatters were connected by artifacts buried in the sediment. While a few artifacts, including 

a sand-glass and a bottle, were situated southeast of the bulbous concretion, this concretion and 

its associated concentration of lead shot and gun flints demarcated the southern margin of the 

site. 

Based on the location of the anchor, the hull remains recovered with the bulbous 

concretion, and other associations described below, the anchor end of the site is likely the bow, 

the bulbous concretion (hereafter stern concretion) the stern, and the vicinity of the cannon 

starboard. Descriptions in the text that follows will employ both this likely orientation and the 

cardinal directions. The port side of the vessel was not identified, and, as a result, the centerline 

of the vessel is still uncertain. 

5.2 Artifacts 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck site contained a wide variety of material culture representing 

the products of several nations, including Great Britain, France, Mexico/Spain, and possibly the 

United States (Table 5.1). These artifacts are distinct from those recovered from many 

shipwreck sites and nearly all terrestrial sites in that they are largely intact. This condition 

allowed for better identification and a more complete analysis of the wreck assemblage. The 

artifacts were analyzed to determine their date of production, function, and nation of origin. All 
76 

Figure 5.1. Site plan (larger version in Appendix D; illustration by B. Ford). 
77 

Table 5.1 

Diagnostic Artifacts Recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

Artifact No. Description Date Nationality Notes Sources 

01 Bowl 1790-1820 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

02 Pôt de crème 1790-1820 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

Hume 1991 

101 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

103 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

104 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

108 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

109 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

112 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

114 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

203 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

227 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

122 Bottle Early 19th c. French Wine bottle 

Jones 1986; Jones and 

Smith 1985; Waselkov and 

Gums 2000 

202 Bottle Late 18th c. British Beer bottle 

201 Bottle Post 1810 British Beer bottle 

Brown 1971; Hume 1991; 

Jones 1986; Jones and 

Smith 1985, 

118 Bottle Post 1806 British LONDON mustard bottle Jones 1983, 1991 

132 Inkpot Early 19th c. British Jones and Smith 1985; 

Wakefield 1982 

219-1 Plate 1790–1820 British Light color, undecorated 

219-2 Plate 1790–1820 British Light color, undecorated 

110-2 Plate 1790–1820 British Light color, undecorated 

Hume 1991; Miller 1980, 

1991 

204 Charger 1790–1820 British Light color, undecorated 

213 Tea Bowl 1775–1820 British Chinese influenced shape 

215 Tea Bowl 1775–1820 British Chinese influenced shape 

214 Saucer 1775–1822 British Light color, undecorated 

111 Bowl 1790–1820 British Light color, undecorated 

Goss 2000; Hume 1991; 

Miller and Stone 1970; 

Standage 2005 

113/212 Tureen and lid 1775–1820 British Light color Queensland Museum 2007 

116 Pitcher circa 1800 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

Gray 2007; Holdaway 

2007; Walford 2007 

115 Teapot 1790–1812 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

Holdaway 2007; Towner 

1978 

211 Platter 1790–1805 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

219-3 Platter 1790–1805 British Light color, distinctive 

shape 

Barker 2007; Hume 1991; 

Towner 1978 

130 Shaker 1780–1820 British Creamware Coysh and Henrywood 

1982; Hornsby 1983 

205 Jug Pre-1786 Unknown Stoneware Greer 1981; Ketchum 

1991; Osgood 1971 

300 Jug circa 1800 American? Stoneware Greer 1981 

102 Bottle 1775–1850 French Stoneware Greer 1981 

228 Spoons 1760–1820 French Old English or 

Hanoverian Type Davis 2003; Moore 1999 

222-7 Coin 1808 Spanish 8 Reales

222-8 Coin 1772–1802 Spanish 2 Reales Craig 2000 
78 

Table 5.1 (continued) 

Diagnostic Artifacts Recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

Artifact No. Description Date Nationality Notes Sources 

230 Buttons post-1796 British ORANGE TREBLE GILT 

Hughes and Lester 

1981; Meredith and 

Meredith 2000 

222-11 Button 1800–1865 British Weave pattern 

222-12 Buttons 1800–1865 British Weave pattern 

Meredith and Meredith 

2000; Peacock 1996 

221 Watch 1780–1810 British? Bailey 1975; Bruton 

1967; Clutton 1973 

400 Cannon post 1797 British Brown 2007 

229 Butt Plate 1750–1800 Dutch/German Lea 2007; Neumann 

1967 

206 Telescope post 1802 English Circa 1810 

133 Octant fragment pre 1882 English 

Clifton 1995 

artifact counts and analyses are based on the information available at the time of writing (January 

2008). Conservation of the artifacts is ongoing and may revise future interpretations. For ease 

of discussion, the artifacts are divided into five main categories according to material type: glass, 

ceramics, metal, organic (including rigging elements), and composite with weapons and 

instruments treated as special subsets of composite artifacts. 

Several of the artifacts were damaged or destroyed by the unsupervised ROV operations 

of October 2004, following Hurricane Ivan. The handle of a stoneware jug (artifact no. 205) was 

broken, as were several of the bottles (artifact nos. 106 and 122), accounting for much of the 

broken glass on the site. The glass of one of the compass covers was broken (artifact no. 128) 

and the creamware tureen was inverted and damaged (artifact no. 212). An octant (artifact no. 

03) was also damaged and removed from the site. 

5.2.1 Glass 

The glass assemblage consists of 14 complete or nearly-complete bottles, one pane, and 

one inkpot, as well as 29 bottle fragments, including two finishes (top portion of neck) all 

recovered from aft (southeast) of the weapons box and bulkhead. The bottle assemblage consists 

of 13 bottles intended to contain fluids and a single condiment bottle. The fluid bottles are 

divided into three distinct morphological groups: “wine” bottles (n=11, including two nearlycomplete broken examples), one “beer” bottle, and one “beer” bottle with a distinct shape and 

light blue patina (Table 5.2). 

The dominant intact wine bottle type (artifact nos. 101, 103, 104, 108, 109, 114, 122, 

203, and 227) range in length from 11.38 to 12.4 inches (28.9 cm–31.5 cm), with body diameters 

between 1.04 to 1.21 inches (2.63 cm–3.07 cm) (Figure 5.2; note, scale in all photographs in 

cm). Interestingly, there is a loosely-inverse relationship between the bottle length and body 

diameter, suggesting that the bottles were made from approximately the same amount of glass. 

The average volume of these bottles is 744 milliliters (ml). This value is within the range of 

most round bottles of this period (680–760 ml) and indicates that the glassmaker was attempting 
79 

to create a bottle that contained one-fifth of a gallon (758 ml) (Brown 1971:101). The bottles 

range in color brown to very dark green or black. Six of these bottles contain their corks, 

indicating that they were filled at the time of the wreck. It was initially hoped that the contents 

of the bottles would be intact; however, it was found that the pressure at depth had dislodged the 

corks. The corks averaged 6.5 cm in length and 2 cm in diameter. 

Table 5.2 

Summary of Mardi Gras Shipwreck Bottles 

Artifact 

No. 

Height 

(cm) 

Body Diameter 

(cm) 

Neck Diameter 

(cm) 

Volume 

(ml) Color Comments 

101 29.4 7.75 2.79 800 Brown Intact 

103 29.2 7.8 2.96 700 Black/Brown Intact 

104 29.1 7.67 3.02 800 Brown Intact 

106 n/a 8.65 (estimate) n/a n/a Brown Broken 

107 n/a 8.45 (estimate) n/a n/a Brown Broken 

108 29.6 7.6 2.63 800 Brown Intact 

109 29.5 7.72 2.72 700 Brown Intact 

112 30.08 8.23 (estimate) 2.75 n/a Brown Broken 

114 28.9 7.67 3.31 800 Black Intact 

118 14.1 4.36 3.1 59 Aqua Mustard 

Bottle 

122 29.5 7.91 3.07 800 Black Intact 

124-1 31.5 8.04 2.7 n/a Brown Broken 

134-8 n/a n/a n/a n/a Brown Bottle 

fragments 

201 24.4 8.96 3.48 780 Blue Blue 

202 22.3 9.78 3.3 800 Black Short Fat 

203 29 7.6 2.75 700 Brown Intact 

227 26.5 8.02 2.74 600 Green Intact 

Figure 5.2. “French wine” bottles (artifact nos. 122, 203, 227, and 103) (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
80 

These bottles appear to have been made using the dip-mold technique, which was 

employed from circa 1730 through 1870 (Jones and Sullivan 1989:26; Lorraine 1968). This 

determination was made based on the dimpled “orange-peel” texture of the bottle body as 

compared to the smooth feel of the shoulders and neck, along with the lack of seams, the 

elongated longitudinal bubbles, and the slight taper from the shoulders to the base. The dip-mold 

technique consisted of gathering a specified amount of glass on the end of a blow tube and 

giving the blob a preliminary shape by turning it against a flat stone or metal surface. The 

resulting piece of glass, called a parison, was then inserted into a single-piece mold and blown to 

form the vessel below the shoulders. Bottles of this type taper from the shoulders to the base to 

facilitate removing them from the mold. Once the body was formed, the upper portion of the 

bottle was shaped by turning and the push-up, or kick, was formed using a shaping stick known 

as a mollette. Kicks are the indentation in the base of the bottle that helped ensure that the vessel 

sat flat and may have had the added advantage of making the bottle appear to hold more liquid 

than it actually contained (Jones 1991:88). The creation of the kick affected the shape of the 

vessel body and may have resulted in the bulged heel evident on these bottles. This base form, in 

which the bottom of the bottle swells immediately above the bottom, generally dates to before 

1820 (Jones 1986:91). With the base formed, the still-hot bottle was then attached to a pontil, or 

metal rod, to ease handling, and the lip and finish were formed. The finish of these bottles, 

including the two disassociated neck fragments (artifact nos. 124-2 and 134-8), consists of a 

single, broad string rim, either flat or “V” shaped. This type of lip was formed by adding a line 

of glass to the neck of the bottle with very little shaping and was a technique used throughout the 

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Jones 1986). The lip allowed the cork to be secured to the 

bottle with wire or twine. The finish was completed by breaking the bottle off just above the lip. 

The Mardi Gras bottles do not show any evidence of fire polishing. Two of the bottles have no 

neck above the lip, while the remainder have approximately 1 cm of glass above the lip, 

suggesting that this is the original arrangement. Finally the pontil was snapped off before the 

bottle was placed in an annealing oven to slowly cool and remove stresses in the glass. The 

removal of the pontil left a distinctive ridge-like scar inside the kick of many of the Mardi Gras 

bottles, suggesting that a glass-tipped pontil was used (Jones 1991:93). 

The most striking attribute of these bottles is their sloping shoulders, distinguishing them 

from British bottle forms, which tend to have more pronounced shoulders (Hume 1991:68). 

Similar bottles, including kick and pontil morphology, were recovered from early nineteenth 

century contexts at Fort George, Ontario and the Dog River Site, Alabama. All of these 

examples were identified as French bottles (Jones and Smith 1985:22; Waselkov and Gums 

2000:153–154). It is therefore likely that the Mardi Gras bottles once contained French wine 

(Jones and Smith 1985:14). 

The dark green “beer” bottle (artifact no. 202) appears to have been made using a similar 

dip-mold process but resulted in a very different shape (Figure 5.3). This bottle measures 8.78 

inches (22.3 cm) high with a body diameter of 3.95 inches (9.78 cm) and a volume of 800 ml. 

These dimensions very closely match the measurements of late eighteenth century British beer 

bottles (Brown 1971:Plate 7; Jones 1986:74, 77; Hume 1991:68). The double-string finish of 

this bottle also differs from the sloped-shoulder wine bottles. This finish was applied by hand 

and shows evidence of where the strings overlapped and were not cleaned. The finish has 

rounded edges and appears to have been fire polished. This type of finish generally dates to the 

second half of the eighteenth century (Jones 1986:54). 
81 

Figure 5.3. “British beer” bottles (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The final liquid bottle has a distinctive shape and finish but is most readily distinguished 

by its unique patina (artifact no. 201). This is a swirled white and light blue patina that appears 

to be part of the original composition of the glass (see Figure 5.3). There is some evidence, in 

the form of brown tinges to the glass in several locations, that the patina is a corrosion product 

and not intended by the glassmaker; however, more analysis is necessary to determine if the 

color was intentional, accidental, or the result of corrosion. Regardless, the patina likely resulted 

from inclusions or contaminants in the glass, possibly cobalt and calcium. This bottle is also 

unique in terms of its shape and dimensions. The bottle measures 9.61 inches (24.4 cm) high 

with a body diameter of 3.53 inches (8.96 cm) and a volume of 780 ml. These dimensions are 

intermediate between the beer and wine bottle types popular among early nineteenth century 

British bottle makers. However, the short neck of this bottle suggests that it may have once 

contained beer or ale (Jones 1985:18; 1986:77). While this bottle was made using a similar dipmould technique, it has a more modern lip finish than the other bottles. The finish consists of a 

down-tooled lip with a down-tooled string rim immediately below it, both with “V” crosssections. The uniform and symmetrical shape of this finish suggests that it was made with a 

finish-forming tool. Finishes of this type have been dated to the second decade of the nineteenth 

century (Jones 1986:68). 

While the majority of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck bottles are classed as French wine 

bottles, with two additional British beer bottles, this is a very tentative identification. 

International bottle styles have not been well-defined and there are several confounding 

circumstances. Prior to the American Revolution, British bottles dominated the American 

market but French bottles were also present. Following the Revolution, German bottles were 

widely used and American glassmakers, who had been in operation since 1608, significantly 

increased their production (Busch 1991:114; Palmer 1993:6, 9). Many of these bottle makers 
82 

closely followed the British styles making their wares difficult to distinguish. There was also a 

good deal of movement between glassworks (Palmer 1993:10). The nation of origin for the 

bottle also does not necessarily indicate its contents. “Wine” and “beer” bottles generally 

contained the beverages they were named for, and the palynology data presented below supports 

these identifications, but these bottles could also be used to transport or serve cider, punches, or 

distilled liquors. Furthermore, as a bulk commodity, it was generally easier to ship alcoholic 

beverages in large containers and to obtain bottles once the liquid had reached its final 

destination. The bottles and beverages often arrived at the port separately and beverages were 

bottled at or near the retail level with very little concern for the actual bottle type (Jones 1986:17, 

19). In many cases, poor quality bottles were shipped to the American colonies to be filled upon 

arrival (Jones 1986:13; Palmer 1993:7). This description is consistent with the Mardi Gras 

Wreck wine bottles. Their generally uniform shape compared with their various colors, 

suggesting little control over impurities in the glass, and their sloppily-applied, unpolished 

finishes suggest that they are low-quality bottles. The tendency to bottle spirits at the retail level 

also suggests that the bottles were for private consumption and were not part of the wreck cargo. 

While alcohol was certainly also shipped in the bottle, the small number of bottles evident on the 

wreck site supports the private consumption hypothesis. 

In addition to imported empty bottles, bottlers could also reuse bottles. Especially prior 

to 1820, there was a significant demand for reused bottles in the United States. Many bottlers 

would either pay for bottles or offer discounts on products put into bottles supplied by the 

customer (Busch 1991). Consequently, except for the blue beer bottle with its more modern 

finish, it is possible that all of the bottles from 16GM01 were reused. However, given the turn of 

the nineteenth century date of the majority of the bottles, the British varieties were likely 

imported prior to 1812. In 1812 the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the duty on glass bottles, 

causing a decline in the use of glass in favor of stoneware vessels (Hume 1991:68). While this is 

circumstantial evidence, especially given that bottles were often reused for more than a decade 

(Adams 2003), it is supported by the other artifacts. Throughout the rest of this report, the 

bottles will be discussed as “French wine” and “British beer” bottles to avoid cumbersome 

description, with the caveat that these may not have been their respective contents at the time of 

wrecking. 

The fourteenth bottle is a square-section condiment bottle measuring 5.55 inches (14.1 

cm) high and 1.72 inches (4.36 cm) wide with the word “LONDON” embossed on one panel 

(artifact no. 118; Figure 5.4). The bottle consists of four slightly-concave panels with chamfered 

corners, a wide circular neck, and an asymmetrical lip. Based on the shape of the bottle and the 

diagonal mold seam across the base, this bottle was made using a two-piece mold. Similar to the 

dip mold bottles, the London bottle was formed by blowing a ball of glass within a mold. 

However, while the dip molds were one piece requiring the bottle to be tapered so that it could 

be removed, the two-piece mold could be opened and the bottle removed. In the case of the 

London bottle, the body and neck were formed by the mold, but the lip was formed by folding 

the neck back on itself in a second step. Two-piece molding was used by bottle makers from 

circa 1750 through circa 1880 (Jones 1991:27). 

Commercial production of dry mustard began in the 1720s, and it became progressively 

more popular during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By 1800, generic, tall, four-panel 

bottles with wide mouths were widely used to distribute mustard in approximately two-ounce 

packages. These bottles were commonly embossed with the type of dry mustard, generally 
83 

London or Durham, and occasionally the place of manufacture. The earliest recorded instance of 

such a bottle labeled “LONDON” comes from a 1775 order placed with a Norwegian glass 

house. However, it was not until 1806 that a bottle specifically matching the one recovered from 

the Mardi Gras Shipwreck was offered for sale in the New World (Jones 1983). 

Figure 5.4. London mustard bottle (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

In addition to the bottles recovered from the wreck, a single cut pane of glass (artifact no. 

129) was also brought to the surface. The pane measures 6 X 3.75 inches (15.1 X 9.55 cm) and 

0.06 inches (0.15 cm) thick. The pane appears to be a piece of leaded crown glass, which 

generally predates 1840 (Scharfenberger 2004). While there have been attempts to date flat glass 

based on its thickness (Roenke 1978), these approaches can only be applied to a statistically 

valid sample, not a single pane. 

The final piece of glassware is a cut leaded-glass inkpot with dried ink still adhering to 

the inside surface (artifact no. 132; Figure 5.5). The square pot measures 1.8 inches (4.55 cm) on 

a side and 1.3 inches (3.24 cm) high with a circular, 1.2 inch (3.1 cm) wide mouth. The open 

mouth of the well would have been covered with a metal lid pierced with a small hole to receive 

the pen. The writing set also likely included a sand pot, not recovered or noted during the 

excavation, as sand was dusted over the writing to reduce smudging. Glass cutting is one of the 

oldest means of glass production and the method is still employed today. However, the 

technique became more popular in mideighteenth century Britain, particularly in Ireland, and 

fluoresced in the early years of the nineteenth century. Simple styles of cut glass, such as the 

recovered inkpot, tend to date to the first two decades of the nineteenth century before the more 

ornate Regency style became popular (Wakefield 1982:19). This general trend is supported by 

the presence of a similar inkpot with beveled edges in an early nineteenth century advertisement 

(Jones and Smith 1985:110). 
84 

Figure 5.5. Inkpot (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

5.2.2 Ceramics 

The ceramics assemblage from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck consists of 14 complete 

vessels, six broken but generally complete items, and three shards. The majority of the wares are 

creamware, but stoneware is also present. The collection includes three place settings consisting of a plate, tea bowl and saucer, as well as two soup plates, a bowls, tureen and lid, two platters,

a pitcher, teapot, caster, two jugs, and a bottle. The majority of the creamware was recovered in 

association with each other just aft of the weapons box (Figure 5.6). 

Figure 5.6. Ceramics in situ. Note the weapons box in the upper left. 
85 

The majority (n=14) of the ceramic assemblage consists of undecorated creamware. 

Creamware is a light-colored refined earthenware that was generally fired to less than 1000o C. 

Due to its low firing temperature, creamware required a glaze in order to contain liquids. This 

glaze was almost exclusively lead-based and tended to have a yellow or green cast that, when 

combined with the base ceramic color, gave creamware its yellowish cream color. Similar wares 

had been produced in England prior to 1740 but significant improvements to color took place 

during the 1750s and 1760s, giving rise to what is today recognized as creamware. Josiah 

Wedgwood was one of the major innovators of this ceramic, developing an early creamware by 

1759 and perfecting his strong and light-colored ware between 1762 and 1768 (Hume 1991:124–

125; Towner 1978:20). Despite the sale of a creamware tea service to Queen Charlotte in 1765 

that led to the ware also being known as “Queen’s Ware,” creamware was an industrial, massproduced product intended for consumption by “middling” families. Most of these wares were 

produced by large pottery firms taking advantage of the latest technology, such as calcined flint, 

liquid glazes, and plaster molds, to produce durable and attractive wares at a low cost (Barker 

2007:33; Draper 1984:47; Massey 2007:18, 25). While creamware was produced in Britain’s 

American colonies as early as 1773, nearly all refined earthenwares recovered from nineteenthcentury archaeological sites are of British origin (Miller 1980). A prodigious amount of these 

wares were exported. Staffordshire, for example exported five-sixths of its product, and British 

producers sent 1.2 million pieces of refined earthenware to its North American colonies in 1770 

and 14 million pieces to the U.S. in 1830 (Barker 2007:35). Much of these wares came from 

Staffordshire, but there were major factories in Leeds, and the Herculaneum Pottery Works in 

Liverpool was well-situated to export to the U.S. (Draper 1984). 

Creamware was the major British pottery during the 1770s, but its popularity was 

curtailed beginning in 1780 by the introduction of pearlware. Pearlware was a slightly-modified 

creamware paste with a blue-tinted glaze (Hume 1991; Towner 1978:21). The blue-tinged glaze 

served a similar purpose to the bluing agent in some detergents, making the ceramic appear 

colder and whiter, better approximating Chinese export porcelain. While creamware continued 

to be produced well into the nineteenth century, pearlware was the most common ceramic ware 

of the early 1800s until its use began to decline circa 1820 (Hume 1991:129–130). 

The industrial production of refined earthenwares during this period greatly benefited 

from the use of molds to make most flatwares (e.g. plates) and some hollowwares (e.g. teapots). 

Molds came into wide-spread use during the second half of the eighteenth century with the 

introduction of plaster of Paris. Plaster of Paris was an ideal mold material because it allowed 

for good detail, was highly absorbent, allowing the clay to set up quickly, and it was inexpensive. 

Most flatwares were made by pressing a thin piece of clay into the mold, using the mold surface 

to shape the front of the piece. The back of the piece and the foot ring were then formed by hand 

using a shaping tool. Hollowwares were often formed using a wheel prior to the American Civil 

War, but the two halves of the vessel could also be formed using a mold before being joined with 

slips (liquefied clay) or thin pieces of clay (Goodby 2007:77, 79; Miller 1991). Regardless of the 

shaping process, the pieces were then allowed to dry to a leather-hard condition before being 

fired in a kiln. The ceramics were separated from each other in the kiln by the use of cock-spurs, 

wasters, and other items. Cock-spur marks have been noted on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

ceramics. This first firing transformed the clay into ceramic. The pieces were then slowly 

cooled, decorated, glazed and fired again (at a lower temperature) to vitrify and set the glazes. 
86 

Figure 5.7. Creamware plate (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The 14 pieces of undecorated creamware recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

consist of three plates (artifact nos. 110-2, 219-1, and 219-2), three tea bowls (artifact nos. 213, 

215-1, and 215-2, which includes two broken bowls), three saucers (artifact no. 214-1, 214-2, 

and 214-3, two of which are broken), two soup plates (artifact nos. 110-1 and 204), one bowl 

(artifact no. 111), one broken tureen (artifact no. 212) with lid (artifact no. 113), one pitcher 

(artifact no. 116), and one teapot (artifact no. 115). These are in addition to a bowl (artifact no. 

01) and pôt de crème (artifact no. 02) that were previously recovered from the site in August 

2004. The plates measure 9.5 inches (24.2 cm) in diameter and 1 inch (2.5 cm) from foot ring to 

rim and are completely devoid of any decoration or molding (Figure 5.7). Similarly undecorated 

are the tea bowls, which measure 2.6 inches (6.5 cm) from foot ring to rim, and has foot ring and 

rim diameters of 2.2 inches (5.6 cm) and 4.1 inches (10.5 cm), respectively (Figure 5.8). The 

saucers, which measure 6 inches (15.3 cm) in diameter, are associated with the tea bowls (Figure 

5.9). The soup plates are the same diameter as the plates (9.5 inches) but slightly deeper at 1.4 

inches (3.5 cm). The bowl has a rim diameter of 12 inches (30.5 cm), a foot ring diameter of 5.5 

inches (14.1 cm) and a height from foot ring to rim of 4.2 inches (10.7 cm) (Figure 5.10). The 

creamware tureen has a slightly ogee-shaped profile with a flared lip and base and lug handles 

(Figure 5.11). The oval opening measures 10.6 inches by 8.1 inches (27 X 20.6 cm), which 

matches the lid. The base of the tureen is 7.4 inches (18.9 cm) in its maximum dimension, while 

the bowl of the tureen flares to 12 inches (30.5 cm) in the same dimension. The entire tureen is 

5.3 inches (13.4 cm) high. The lid is undecorated but has a ladle notch in its long dimension 

(Figure 5.12). 
87 

While all of the preceding pieces were likely press molded, the teapot and pitcher appear 

to have been turned or at least finished on a wheel, as evidenced by circular marks on their 

bottoms. The teapot measures 5.5 inches (14.1 cm) high with hard shoulders, leading to a 4-inch 

(10.2-cm) opening, the lid for which was not noted on the seafloor (Figure 5.13). The strap 

handle and spout are both undecorated. After the body of the teapot was formed it was allowed 

to harden slightly, then punched with holes within the area where the spout was to be attached. 

Finally, the pitcher also has a simple strap handle of the same thickness (0.33 inches [0.85 cm]). 

The pitcher stands 6.9 inches (17.5 cm) tall, has a base diameter of 4.4 inches (11.3 cm), and an 

opening diameter of 5.2 inches (13.3 cm), including the spout (Figure 5.14). 

Figure 5.8. Creamware teabowl (artifact no. 213) (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.9. Creamware saucers (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
88 

Figure 5.10. Creamware bowl (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.11. Creamware tureen (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
89 

Figure 5.12. Creamware tureen lid (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.13. Creamware teapot (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
90 

Figure 5.14. Creamware pitcher (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

All of these ceramics are undecorated, light-colored creamware. In 1775, the 

Staffordshire potters were granted access to kaolin clays from Cornwall, allowing them to 

produce lighter-colored creamware, which generally dates from 1775 to 1820 for table and tea 

wares (Miller 1991). Plain rimmed creamware plates can date earlier than 1783, but the vast 

majority were produced after 1790 (Hume 1991:126). However, this ware was the cheapestavailable refined earthenware of the period. By the early nineteenth century, a wide variety of 

decorated creamwares were available including sponge-painted, banded (mocha), feather-edged, 

hand-painted, and transfer-printed. Undecorated creamware sold for approximately two-thirds 

the cost of a feather-edged creamware and one-eighth the cost of the cheapest transfer-printed 

varieties (Miller 1980:Figure 2). Creamware also suffered from the growing popularity of 

pearlware and, after 1812, it was rare to find tea sets made of creamware. After 1820, 

creamware was almost absent from the table and used only for chamber pots, bed pans, and large 

kitchen bowls (Miller 1980, 1991). 

Further evidence for the approximate date of these ceramics is derived from their forms. 

For example, hard shoulders leading to a reduced-diameter mouth became popular on teapots 

circa 1775 (cf. Towner 1978:86–87, 123) and a very similar shape, though significantly more 

decorated, was produced by Wedgwood in 1805 (Holdaway 2007:65). Similarly, the pitcher 

shape was popular during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and can be 

distinguished from earlier examples that either have a foot ring or much more flare to the base. 

Examples similar to the pitcher recovered from 16GM01 were produced at Newcastle in 1796 

and in Wales circa 1800 (Gray 2007:271; Holdaway 2007:69; Walford 2007:93). A similarlyshaped tureen with a more ornate lid was recovered from HMS Pandora that wrecked in 1791 
91 

(Queensland Museum 2007). The shape of the tea bowls appears to be less temporally 

diagnostic as the shape was present from the late seventeenth century through the nineteenth 

century; however, this shape was particularly popular from circa 1750–1820. Additionally, there 

is some connection between this shape and coffee, as similar bowls were depicted in a late

eighteenth century illustration of an English coffee house (Goss 2000; Miller and Stone 1970; 

Standage 2005:155). 

In addition to the undecorated wares, there are two creamware platters with molded edges 

(artifact nos. 211 and 219-3; Figure 5.15). While these pieces would also have been classed 

among the most inexpensive wares available, they appear to be from a different set than the other 

pieces. Both platters measure 11.8 in by 9.5 inches (30 X 24.2 cm) and are molded in the Royal 

Pattern. Creamware of this pattern was developed by Wedgwood in 1765 but did not become 

popular until after 1770, remaining popular for several decades (Hume 1991:125; Towner 

1978:60). While the Royal Pattern edge is widely recognized, there were subtle variations 

through time; however these have not been well-documented and are not effective for dating. 

Despite that caveat, a platter with a very similar edge treatment was excavated from Haregate 

Hall, England and dated to 1790–1805 (Barker 2007:39). 

The final piece of refined earthenware is the creamware shaker (artifact no. 130) situated 

in association with the ceramics and bottles, forward (west) of the stern concretion (Figure 5.16). 

The shaker has an ovoid body with a pronounced base and a perforated head set off by a strong 

rim. The piece measures 4.4 inches (10.9 cm) tall with diameters of 1.8 inches (4.6 cm), 2.2 

inches (5.6 cm), and 1.4 inches (3.6 cm) at the base, widest point, and head, respectively. 

Shakers were commonly used to hold dry table condiments. Two late eighteenth century 

examples contained sugar and pepper (Towner 1978:85, 141). Similar pearlware and pewter 

shakers dating to 1780–1810 were identified during the literature review (Coysh and Henrywood 

1982; Horsnby 1983:152–153; Michaelis 1971:Plate XXIX). 

Figure 5.15. Royal Pattern creamware (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
92 

Figure 5.16. Creamware Shaker (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The final three pieces of ceramic are stoneware. Stoneware was fired at a higher 

temperature (1200–1400o

 Celsius) than refined earthenware, which resulted in the ceramic being 

vitrified and impermeable to liquids. Consequently, stoneware vessels did not require glaze in 

order to contain liquids. However, they were often given a salt or alkaline glaze to increase 

durability and improve appearance. While much stoneware was produced in Germany beginning 

in the sixteenth century, the British and Americans also produced substantial amounts of this 

ceramic. American production began prior to the second quarter of the eighteenth century and 

continued well into the nineteenth century (Hume 1991:100). 

Two of the stoneware pieces from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck are large storage jugs. 

Artifact number 205, recovered from aft (southeast) of the weapons box, measures 15.3 inches 

(39 cm) high with a maximum body diameter of 11.4 inches (29 cm) (Figure 5.17). The outside 

diameter of the lip is 2.4 inches (6 cm), the base diameter is 6.3 inches (16 cm), and the lipattached handle is 0.8 inches (2 cm) thick. The jug has a volume of 1200 ml. The body of the 

jug is incised with a large, multi-petaled flower that is decorated with cobalt blue glaze under the 

clear salt glaze that covers the exterior of the vessel. This artifact was damaged by the 2004 

ROV visit with a large vertical crack through the body and a portion of the handle broken free 

(recovered). Artifact number 300 is slightly smaller and slimmer than number 205, measuring 

15.6 inches (37 cm) tall and 9.3 inches (23.5 cm) at the widest point, with base and neck 

diameters of 6.1 inches (15.3 cm) and 2.5 inches (6.46 cm), respectively (Figure 5.18). The jug 

has a volume of 9250 ml. It was situated along the starboard (northeast) side of the vessel 

between the stove and cannon. The strap handle, which measures 0.7 inches (1.7 cm) thick, is 

attached just above the shoulder and immediately below the lip. An alkaline glaze was poorly 
93 

applied to the exterior, with drip lines near the base. The jug is marked with a “4” near its 

shoulder, likely indicating that the jug was intended to contain four pottles, equivalent to two 

pre-1826 beer gallons (1 beer gallon = 4620.1 ml) (Ross 1983:47). Both jugs were wheel-thrown 

with striations from the cutting wire visible on the base of jug 300. 

Figure 5.17. Stoneware jug (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Both jugs appear to date between circa 1780 and 1830. A jug with a very similar body 

shape, lip shape, and handle attachment to artifact number 300 was recovered from the French 

Kingstown Harbor Shipwreck (1776) and given a terminus ante quem of 1786. This jug was also 

inscribed with a “4” and was identified as Rhenish (German) (Johnson 1999:14). The shape of 

artifact number 205 was common circa 1790–1830 and the attachment of the handle to the lip of 

the jug was popular circa 1809–1830 (Greer 1981:76; Ketchum 1991; Osgood 1971; Webster 

1971). While Hume (1991:101) claims that American stoneware was seldom both incised and 

color-glazed, Greer (1981) includes a number of American-made stoneware jugs that were 

decorated in this manner. One of these examples, dated to the very-late eighteenth or early 

nineteenth century and attributed to the Crolius potter family of Manhattan, New York, was 

remarkably similar in shape and decoration (incised, color-glazed, multi-petaled flower, with 

large and small leaves) to artifact number 205 (Greer 1981:156). 
94 

Figure 5.18. Stoneware jug (artifact no. 300) (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The final stoneware artifact is a 5.9 inch (14.9 cm) tall baluster-shaped bottle (artifact no. 

102) that was situated immediately north of the stern concretion (Figure 5.19). This bottle was 

fitted with a cork when it was recovered, but similar to the glass bottles, none of the original 

contents remained. Bottles of this type were commonly made in France from the late eighteenth 

through the mid-nineteenth centuries to contain inks and oils. These containers are common in 

New Orleans but have also been recovered from Savanna, Georgia and Charleston, South 

Carolina (Greer 1981:247–248). 
95 

Figure 5.19. French stoneware ink or oil bottle (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

5.2.3 Metals 

The metal artifact assemblage from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, consisting of cuprous, 

ferric and pewter items, includes many of the smallest and largest items recorded on the site. 

Spoons, buttons, coins, the ship’s stove, and anchor are included in this assemblage. 

Complementing the creamware table setting are three pewter spoons (artifact nos. 139-1 

[recovered near the stern concretion], 228-1 and 228-2 [recovered aft of weapons box]). These 

spoons are likely not the only utensils on the ship’s table, but they survived better than the 

possible forks and knives represented by several bone and wood scales (see Organics below). 

Two of the spoons are remarkably well-preserved (Figure 5.20), while the third is badly 

corroded. It is possible that the corroded spoon is made of a different material or differentially 

corroded due to its proximity to another artifact, but at the current state of conservation it is 

impossible to make this determination. The intact spoons measure 8.8 inches (22.3 cm) long, 
96 

with long ovoid bowls measuring 3.1 in by 1.6 inches (7.8 X 4.1 cm). The handles terminate in a 

tear-drop shape that measures 0.9 inches (2.4 cm) in its longest dimension. The drop on the back 

of each spoon bowl is decorated with two lobes of the handle extending 0.7 inches (1.8 cm) onto 

the bowl. 

Figure 5.20. Reverse of pewter spoons (artifact no. 228-1 and 228-2) (bar equals 2 cm). Note maker’s marks 

(photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Both spoons are stamped on the reverse of the handle. While neither strike is particularly 

clear, the mark appears to read “FABREGUETTE / JEUNE A BORDX.” However the final 

letter could also be “Y.” Translated this inscription reads “Fabreguette the younger from 

Bordx.” The only French pewter smiths of the name Fabreguette was a family that operated 

beginning in the late eighteenth century on the Rue des Ayres in Bordeaux (Anonymous 

1900:309). Consequently, it is possible that the mark refers to one of the sons of this family and 

“BORDX” is an abbreviation for Bordeaux. This date conforms well to the other artifacts 

recovered from the shipwreck and the morphology of the spoon. 

During conservation it was noted that the lot 228-2 spoon with the crimped handle is 

marked with an asterisk on the inside of the bowl and initials on the reverse of the handle. The 

asterisk consists of an X with an additional line running through its center along the long axis of 

the bowl. The initials on the reverse of the handle are difficult to read due to the damaged 

handle. However, they appear to read “BDF.” The bottom of the B is obscured and the F is tall 

but only lightly engraved. These initials have not been tied to an individual because the vessel’s 

port of origin has not been definitively identified. 

Pewter was present in antiquity as a heavily-leaded metal but by the Renaissance it was 

primarily made of tin, as much as 90 percent in fine pewter, alloyed with copper and antimony 

for strength and durability and lead to make the metal easier to cast. Fine French pewter 

followed the 90 percent tin rule, but lower grades could contain up to 26 percent lead, and Claire 

Etoffe contained a maximum of 40 percent lead (Davis 2003:2; Hornsby 1983:11). The presence 
97 

of lead in pewter was important because, prior to 1800, all pewter was cast, and the lead aided 

the flow of metal; however, too much lead made the metal too soft for most functions. 

When the American colonies were settled, pewter was very common as tableware, but, by 

1700, the industry had begun to suffer from competition with copper wares and, slightly later, 

was further threatened by inexpensive ceramics. While the expanding U.S. and European 

populations offset some of this downturn, the U.S. was one of the few regions to experience 

growth in pewter sales during the eighteenth century (Davis 2003:2; Hornsby 1983:25). Spoons, 

candlesticks, and mugs were among the items that were not readily replaced by other materials, 

and utensils and mugs were two of the major products remaining in the pewter industry during 

the nineteenth century (Hornsby 1983:27; Michaelis 1971). In response to continued 

competition from ceramics, the pewter industry underwent a major change in the early nineteenth 

century and began using alloys containing more antimony to form objects shaped from rolled 

sheets rather than casts. The new metal was called Britannia and was valued for its ornamental 

quality instead of its utility (Farber 1974:xi–xii). The heavy utilitarian spoons recovered from 

the Mardi Gras Shipwreck clearly are not Britannia pewter. 

Pewter does not regularly occur in terrestrial archaeological sites because it was readily 

recycled during the historic period and the few pieces that were lost or discarded tend to 

deteriorate rapidly once buried (Davis 2003:6). Pewter does, however, survive well in 

collections and in anaerobic environments; many surviving examples are from these contexts. 

This pattern has biased the American sample, with much of the emphasis placed on British and 

U.S. examples. While Britain was the leading producer of pewter, exporting more than 300 tons 

of the metal annually to the U.S. during the 1760s (Farber 1974:ix), France was also a major 

producer, well outranking the U.S. (Hornsby 1983:20). The French industry is evident in 

eighteenth century treatises, such as Art du Portier d’ Étain by M. Salmon (1788). 

The spoons recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck Site are of the Hanoverian type. 

This type is distinguished by its relatively long bowl, rounded handle, and drop shape and was 

produced between 1760 and 1820 (Davis 2003:176–181). The Hanoverian type of spoon is 

distinguished from the Old English type by its upturned handle end (Moore 1999). Similar 

double-lobed drops were also noted on late eighteenth century French spoons (Salmon 

1788:Plate xxviii). This form of drop seems to have been developed from the earlier eighteenth 

century “rat-tail” drop that extended the handle down the center back of the spoon bowl. 

Ultimately, drops were completely removed. 

Also recovered from the area of the weapons box was a single crushed metal (appears to 

be iron) cylinder or can (artifact no. 226-2) that measures 6 inches (15.2 cm) long and 4 inches 

(10.2 cm) wide. This item is still undergoing conservation and its function is not yet clear. 

Meals eaten from the creamware dishes with the pewter spoons were likely cooked on the 

small cast-iron ship’s stove (artifact no. 302). The stove is rectangular in plan, measuring 19.3 

inches by 26.8 inches (49 cm X 68 cm), and stands 17.5inches (44.4 cm) high at the shoulder 

with a 2-inch (5-cm) flue extending 5.2 inches (13.2 cm) above the shoulder (Figure 5.21). The 

entire structure rests on four 2.4-inch (6.2-cm) legs that were cast as part of the side plates. The 

stove is constructed of six separate pieces held together with six tie-rods (not extant). The side 

plates were cast with lips and tabs that held the other plates in place. The lips ran the entire 

length of all but the sloping side and likely helped to reinforce the brittle cast iron. The other 

plates slid between these lips and the tabs. The tie rods ran transversely through both of the 
98 

upper kettle-box corners, through the center of the kettle box, across the forward face of the 

roasting box, and likely between the legs. 

Figure 5.21. Reconstruction of cast iron galley stove (artifact no. 302) (illustration by B. Ford). 
99 

The entire stove assembly consists of two side plates with raised lips that held the other 

plates in place, a back plate with a cast flue, a bottom plate, a small front plate, and the kettle. 

The kettle consists of two separate, rectangular-plan basins cast as a single piece. The entire 

kettle measures 19.5 inches by 13 inches (49.4 cm X 33.1 cm) and 13.4 inches (34 cm) high, 

including a 1.5-inch (3.7-cm) lip. The interior of the kettle is divided by a 0.4-inch (0.9-cm) wall 

into two unequal basins both 12.6 inches (32 cm) deep. Both basins measure 10.2 inches (26 

cm) longitudinally but 8.3 inches (21.1 cm) and 9.7 inches (24.6 cm) transversely at the top. The 

kettle was cast with thicker walls than the stove itself, 0.6 inches (1.6 cm) as compared to 0.4 

inches (1 cm), possibly as means to distribute the fire heat more evenly and prevent scalding. 

While the kettle was used for cooking liquids or as Dutch ovens, direct access to the fire was 

provided by the lower forward portion of the stove (ship’s stoves typically had the kettles aft 

(Lavery 1987:197). The forward portion of the stove extends 11.6 inches (29.5 cm) beyond the 

face of the boiler box with a semi-circular notch near its center on both side plates. These 

notches were likely intended to receive a spit for roasting small pieces of meat. With the spit 

removed, a small cauldron could also have been hung over the opening. This opening is also the 

only access to the interior of the stove, suggesting it is where fuel was added and ashes removed. 

Charcoal may have been the primary fuel, for the shallow area between the bottom plate and the 

bottom of the kettle would only have fit small pieces of wood. Charcoal is less dense than water 

and would have likely floated away from the wreck. 

Metal galley stoves can be traced back to the foculi of the Roman Period, but modern 

iron galley stoves were proposed in 1728 and, by 1757, were in general use, slowly replacing 

earlier brick hearths. Unfortunately, very little is known about these stoves archaeologically. 

HMS Pandora, HMS De Braak, the Kingstown Harbor Wreck, the Rose Hill Wreck, and the 

Piña Colada Wreck all contained metal stoves of this period, the Piña Colada Wreck’s stove 

appearing to be the most similar to the one recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck; however, 

none of these stoves have been fully-reported (Shomette 1993; Sinclair 2002; Wilde-Ramsing et 

al. 1992; David Johnson, personal communication 2007). Similarly, a search of the U.S. patent 

records did not yield any similar stoves, and the British patent records are not available. The 

stove does not bear any marks to indicate where it was made or the name of the manufacturer. 

Small stoves of this type were cast in great numbers for sale through ship chandlery shops. A 

review of stoves offered for sale in port newspapers may help identify the manufacturer or at 

least identify the general type. 

Despite this lack of information, the Mardi Gras shipwreck stove appears to be of a 

generic pattern for the period. By the 1780s, most iron stoves consisted of a combination kettle 

and spit-cooking apparatus within a rectangular footprint. Square, cast-iron kettles also appear to 

have come into wide-spread use at approximately the same date (Lavery 1987:197, 199; Watson 

1968:410). The division of the kettles into uneven sizes was developed even earlier and was 

common in the American, French, and English navies. The Revolutionary War period privateer

Defence had similar uneven kettles built into its brick hearth. The specific reasons for this 

uneven division are unclear but appear to have been based on a division of the food by rank 

among the French and a functional division for the British (Boudriot 1986:110; Lavery 

1987:197; Switzer 1978:41–42). 

The kettles of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck stove appear to have rested on the central tierod. This supposition is supported by the position of the kettle resting above the stove body on 

the seafloor as compared with the reconstructed stove. This arrangement allowed for more food 
100 

to be cooked, while taking up less deck space and maintaining sufficient room beneath the kettles 

for fuel to be banked. In this position, the kettle also appears to form the front of the flue, 

creating more efficient draft by directing hot air past the rear of the kettles. Removing the 

central tie-rod would have allowed the kettles to be lowered into the stove, where the kettle lip 

would have rested on the stove plates. This arrangement may have been beneficial when the 

stove was not in use or if the contents were being warmed over a small fire. The forward portion 

of the stove was likely fitted with a spit and a lid. The spit can be inferred from the two notches 

in the top edge of each side plate. The slope of the side plates and the shape of the notches 

would have allowed the spit to rest securely. Roasting spits were common on Brodie-patented 

stoves of the same period (Watson 1968). The presence of a lid for the lower portion of the stove 

is deduced from the lip extending part-way along the sloping surface of the side plates. This lip 

may have been to reinforce the sides but does not extend the full length of the sloped edges, 

implying a different use. A metal lid could have rested on these lips and on the tie rod across the 

roasting box. Such a lid would have been useful to retain heat and direct it to the kettles when 

the spit was not in use. The length of the lips would have allowed the lid to be slid partially 

open, acting as a damper to control the heat of the fire. 

Associated with the stove are two sheets of lead, likely used to protect the deck and hull 

from sparks and heat. One of the pieces has an impression that matched the stove leg, suggesting 

that the stove rested atop the lead and that the lead was used instead of brick to shield the deck. 

While copper sheathing was more common for this purpose, other metals, such as tin, were used 

(Boudriot 1986:109). The stove likely also included two lids to cover the kettles and a chimney 

for the flue (Lavery 1987:197), neither of which was observed or recovered from the shipwreck. 

The other major piece of ship’s equipment noted on the site is the anchor situated near 

what is likely the bow of the ship. The anchor was not recovered, due to its poor state of 

preservation; instead it was recorded on the seafloor. The anchor measures 4 ft (1.22 m) between 

bills and 5.3 ft (1.62 m) from its crown to where the shank is buried in the sediment. The only 

identifiable features of the anchor, the angle of the crown and the ratio of the flukes to the arms, 

are very similar to the anchors illustrated in Lavery (1987:31, 32, 34), suggesting that the anchor 

was forged prior to circa 1815 (Lavery 1987:30). The stock of the anchor, which was originally 

perpendicular to the arms, may be lying just east of the shank. The possible stock consists of two 

pieces of what appears to be iron-stained wood measuring 2.9 ft (88.4 cm) long and 12 inches 

(30.5 cm) wide at their widest point. A large (12-inch [30.5-cm]) iron ring is lying on the west 

end of the possible stock. Immediately east of the possible stock is a piece of iron that may be 

the crown of a second anchor with only short portions of the arms and shank surviving. This 

artifact measures 1.2 ft (36.6 cm) from “arm” to “arm” and 2.2 ft (67.1 cm) from “crown” to 

“shank.” Several other artifacts that were not recovered are situated in this area. These appear to 

be partially buried pieces of iron bar. 

Moving from the largest to among the smallest artifacts recorded at 16GM01, two 

Spanish coins were recovered from immediately aft of the weapons box, both minted in Mexico. 

The milled eight-reales piece (artifact no. 222-7) was struck with the royal coat of arms 

surrounded by “•HISPAN • ET • IND • REX • M • 8R • T•H•” on its obverse (Figure 5.22). The 

first four words can be translated as “King of Spain and the Indies.” The “M” beneath an “o” 

refers to Mexico City, the mint where the coin was produced. “8R” indicates the denomination 

of the coin, eight reales, which is equivalent to approximately 27.0642 grams of silver (Craig 

2000; Menzel 2004). Finally, the “TH” refers to the assayers Tomás Butrón Miranda and 
101 

Henrique B. Azorín, who were in office 1803–1810. The coat of arms includes two rampant 

lions, two keeps, the Pillars of Hercules, and a crown. The reverse of the coin was struck with 

the bust of Charles IV (reigned 1788–1808) with the partially illegible inscription “CAROLUS 

IIII 1808,” indicating to the mint date and the ruling monarch (Craig 2000) (Figure 5.23). 

Figure 5.22. Eight reales coin obverse (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.23. Eight reales coin reverse (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The other coin (artifact no. 222-8) is a two-reale (approximately 6.766 grams of silver) 

piece with only the obverse side legible. The reverse is concreted to a wood fragment and may 
102 

be revealed during conservation. The mark is similar to that of the eight-reale piece but the 

inscription read “HISPAN • ET • IND • REX • M • 2R • F•M•” (Figure 5.24). The assayers of 

this coin were either Francisco A. de la Peña and Manuel de Rivera (1772–1777) or Francisco A. 

de la Peña and Mariano Rodríguez (1783–1802) (Craig 2000). Without the reverse side of the 

coin, it is impossible to be certain of its production date. While it is tempting to attribute the 

coinage carried by the officers and crew to their nationality, Spanish coins were one of the major 

forms of portable wealth in the Gulf of Mexico region during the early nineteenth century. Spain 

still controlled much of the known silver in the area, and its standardized coin denominations lent 

themselves to international exchange. Spanish silver coins have been recovered from late 

eighteenth/early nineteenth century wrecks as widely separated as the early nineteenth century 

Piña Colada Wreck off the Atlantic coast of Florida and the 1761 wreck of Auguste near the 

mouth of the St. Lawrence River (Ascroft and Rochette 1992; Sinclair 2002). 

Figure 5.24. Two reales coin obverse (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

In addition to the coins, nine metal buttons (artifact nos. 222-2, 222-11, 222-12, 223-6, 

225-9, 225-9.1, 225-9.2, 230-1 and 230-2; Figure 5.25) and one wood button (artifact no. 222-6, 

discussed here for consistency) were recovered from immediately aft of (southeast) of the 

weapons box, in close proximity to the coins (lot 222). The majority of these buttons appear to 

be copper alloy coat, breeches, sleeve, waistcoat, and vest buttons, likely imported from Britain. 

While there were American button manufacturers during the eighteenth century, they controlled 

a small portion of the market prior to 1810 (Fink and Ditzler 1993:25; Peacock 1996:5–7). 

These buttons are also indicative of male clothing, as women’s fashions of the early nineteenth 

century seldom had buttons (Meredith and Meredith 2000:10). 

Four of the buttons appeared to be undecorated copper alloy disks, one with an intact 

shank (artifact no. 225-9.2), one with a broken but associated shank (artifact no. 222-2) and two 

with missing shanks (artifact nos. 223-6 and 225-9.1). The button with intact shank measures 1 
103 

inch (2.5 cm) in diameter with a 0.25-inch (0.66-cm) shank. The button with associated shank 

measures 1.04 inches (2.66 cm) in diameter with a 0.3-inch (0.75-cm) shank. The buttons with 

missing shanks measure 0.9 inch (2.3 cm) and 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter. Additionally, one of 

the buttons without a shank (artifact no. 225-9.1), appears to have the remains of a cone shank. 

Cone shanks date to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Hughes and Lester 

1981:221). All of these buttons were likely attached to waistcoats, sleeves, breeches, or vests 

based on their size and lack of decoration (Ferris 1986; Hinks 1988; Hughes and Lester 1981). 

Figure 5.25. Assorted buttons (artifact no. 225-9 (center), 225-9.1 (left), and 225-9.2 (right)) (bar equals 2 cm; 

photograph by R. Sasaki). 

In addition to the plain buttons, there are two buttons with back marks and undecorated 

faces (artifact no. 230-1 and 230-2). These buttons measure 0.94 inches (2.4 cm) in diameter 

with broken omega-type shanks. One of the back marks is badly deteriorated, surviving only as 

a light indentation, but the other clearly reads “ORANGE TREBLE GILT•” encircling the shank. 

Back marks generally post-date 1790, but examples have been found as early as 1758 (Bingeman 

and Mack 1997). However, omega shanks were not introduced until circa 1800 and back marks 

that reference the gilding process did not appear until 1796 (Hughes and Lester 1981:221; 

Meredith and Meredith 2000:26). In 1796, Parliament passed an act standardizing the amount of 

gold that had to be used in gilding buttons at 9/16 of an ounce per gross of buttons. Briefly, 

buttons were gilded by dipping them in a solution containing gold; prior to the act many 

manufacturers were producing inferior buttons to the detriment of the industry. The 1796 Act 

placed a premium on quality and led to back marks such as “Treble Gilt,” “Rich Orange,” 

“Double Gilt,” and “Treble Standard” (Albert and Adams 1951:38; Luscomb 1967:79; Meredith 
104 

and Meredith 200:25, 26; Peacock 1996:15). Similar to the other undecorated buttons, these 

buttons were likely attached to waistcoats, sleeves, breeches, or vests, based on their size and 

lack of decoration (Ferris 1986; Hinks 1988; Hughes and Lester 1981). 

Figure 5.26. Reverse of weave pattern button (artifact no. 222-11) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. 

Sasaki). 

There are also two buttons with matching back marks and obverse decorations (artifact 

nos. 222-11 and 222-12). Both measure 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter and have intact 0.2-inch 

(0.6-cm) wide alpha shanks. The back marks consist of a laurel with a trefoil bead pattern at its 

base and a crown at the apex and the word “GILT” along the inside of the laurel (Figure 5.26). 

The crown is similar to crowns associated with Great Britain, suggesting that the buttons are of 

British origin. This supposition is supported by the dominance of the gilded button market by 

Birmingham during the first quarter of the nineteenth century (Peacock 1996:15). Unfortunately, 

a review of available sources on buttons failed to identify the specific maker or type. The back 

of artifact number 222-11 also has evidence of the casting seam. The obverse of both buttons is 

decorated with a cast weave pattern (Figure 5.27). The vertical weave is eight strands while the 

horizontal weave is two sets of three strands separated by a blank area. A dot is cast at the 

intersection of each warp and weft. During the early nineteenth century, male fashion called for 

decorated and gilded buttons, commonly referred to as dandies or golden age (Meredith and 

Meredith 2000:20; Peacock 1996:15). The weave pattern was popular from circa 1800 through 

the Civil War, but the presence of an alpha shank suggests that these buttons were produced 

early in that period (alpha shanks date to ca. 1770–1800) (Hughes and Lester 1981:221; 

Meredith and Meredith 2000:25; Peacock 1996:17). While these buttons are smaller than most 

gilded coat buttons, their decoration suggests that they were attached to such a garment (Albert 

and Adams 1951; Hughes and Lester 1981; Peacock 1996). 

The final decorated metal button (artifact no. 225-9) is a cast, flat disk measuring 0.9 

inches (2.2 cm) in diameter. The reverse of this button is undecorated while the obverse is 

decorated with a three-flower bouquet bound by a large bow (Figure 5.28). No parallels for this 
105 

button were identified during the literature review. Floral patterns were common on gilded 

buttons, but the majority appeared to be natural, rather than bouquet, patterns. The small size of 

this button suggests that it was attached to a sleeve, waistcoat, or breeches (Hughes and Lester 

1981). 

Figure 5.27. Obverse of weave pattern button (artifact no. 222-11) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. 

Sasaki). 

Figure 5.28. Bouquet button (artifact no. 225-9) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 
106 

The final recovered button (artifact no. 222-6) is made of wood (Figure 5.29). This 

domed button measures 0.7 inches (1.7 cm) in diameter and is 0.3 inches (0.7-cm) thick. It is 

decorated with 10 incised lines radiating from the center and a line carved around the 

circumference of its base. Wooden buttons seldom survive and, consequently, are not well 

documented. However, similar buttons were made of glass during the nineteenth century 

(Luscomb 1967:87). Wooden buttons of this size were commonly used on light outer garments 

such as breeches and waistcoats (Hughes and Lester 1981). 

Figure 5.29. Wooden button (artifact no. 222-6) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

In addition to these identifiable artifacts, there are several metal artifacts that could not be 

assigned a function (photographs of these artifacts are located in Appendix B). A small cupreous 

rectangle measuring 1.03 X 0.66 inch (2.7 X 1.7 cm) was recovered from west of the stern 

concretion (artifact no. 139-4). Given the proximity of this artifact to the navigation instrument 

fragments, it is possibly associated with them. Similarly, a 2.2-inch (5.6-cm) diameter ring with 

a raised and knurled surface (artifact no. 136) was recovered from within the ceramic and glass 

concentration near the stern concretion. This artifact may also have been associated with the 

instruments. A cupreous handle (artifact no. 216), likely from a drawer, was recovered near the 

southeast corner of the weapons box. This item measures 3.2 inch (8.1 cm) long and 1.5 inch 

(3.8 cm) wide and ranges in thickness between 0.2 inch (0.5 cm) and 0.35 inch (0.9 cm). An 

oddly-shaped cupreous tab (artifact no. 223-2) was recovered from immediately east of the 

weapons box. This artifact measures 0.8 inch (2 cm) in its greatest width with a 0.15-inch (0.4-

cm) diameter hole in the center and three 0.1-inch (0.3-cm) holes around the edge. A badly 

corroded cupreous fragment (artifact no. 223-4) measuring 3 X 0.8 X 0.07 in (7.7 X 2 X 0.2 cm) 

was also recovered from east of the weapons box. A metal ring (artifact no. 225-3) that 

measures 0.7 inch (1.9 cm) in diameter and 0.1 inch (0.3 cm) thick and a bent cupreous disk 

(artifact number 222-5) were recovered from near the center of the east side of the weapons box. 

The disk has a diameter of 0.9 inch (2.3 cm) and is bent along its center line. A 0.2-inch (0.5-

cm) hole is situated near the top edge of one of the halves. Artifact numbers 223-2 223-4, 225-3, 
107 

and 222-5) may have been associated with navigation equipment or other instruments (the 

measurement compass, artifact number 225-2, is part of the 225 lot), but their fragmentary nature 

makes their function difficult to discern. 

5.2.4 Organics 

The organic artifact category includes wood, leather, bone, seed, and rope artifacts 

recovered from throughout the site. These items are divided into four categories: personal items, 

implements, rigging elements, and miscellaneous. 

Two of the personal items are a shoe heel (artifact no. 138-2) and a toothbrush head and 

handle (artifact no. 134-6) recovered from the bottle and dish feature northwest of the concretion 

(Figures 5.30 and 5.31). The leather heel measures 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) wide (across the foot), 

2.3 inches (5.8 cm) long (heel to toe), and 0.4 inches (1.1 cm) thick. The associated footwear 

appears to have been made using pegged or nailed construction. This method dates from the 

sixteenth century through circa 1870, but during the nineteenth century was commonly used for 

boots and cheaper shoes (Stevens and Ordoñez 2005). Aside from the buttons discussed above, 

the heel is the only remains of clothing recovered from the shipwreck. The bone toothbrush head 

measures 1.9inches (4.9 cm) long and 0.4 inches (1.1 cm) wide with 31 holes. The back of the 

brush is inscribed with three lines that correspond with the bristle holes. The associated handle 

is circular, measuring 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in diameter and 2.2 inches (5.6 cm) long. Several 

animal hair bristles were recovered from the holes in the head. 

Figure 5.30. Leather footwear heel (artifact no. 138-2) (photograph by A. Borgens). 

Additionally, five bone utensil scales were recovered from the wreck site (Figure 5.32). 

These scales would have been riveted to the tang of a knife or fork to form the handle. All scales 
108 

are flattened hemispheres in section with the flat surface intended to fit against the tang. The 

three handles from the artifact lot 134-1, 134-1.1 and 134-1.2 measure: 3.5 X 1 inches (9.8 X 2.5 

cm), 2.3 X 0.9 inches (5.9 X 2.2 cm), and 2.1 X 1 inches (5.3 X 2.5 cm). These scales were 

recovered in association with the bottle and ceramic assemblage northwest of the stern 

concretion. The 3.5-inch long scale is pierced by two holes and possibly a third. The two holes 

measure 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) and 0.5 inches (1.4 cm) in diameter with the smaller hole near the 

pommel. The 5.3-inch long scale is pierced with two holes that are 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in 

diameter; these allowed rivets to pass through the scale with the peened end of the rivet holding 

the scale to the tang. Two other handle scales were recovered from the area immediately 

southeast of the weapons box. Artifact number 217 measures 3.8 inches long (9.5 cm) and 1.1 

inches wide (2.8 cm), and is pierced with two holes measuring 0.4 inches (1.1 cm) and 0.3 inches 

(0.7 cm) in diameter. Again the smaller hole is near the pommel. Artifact number 225-7 is 3.7 

inches long (9.3 cm) and 1 inch wide (2.5 cm) with two holes measuring 0.4 inches (1.2 cm) and 

0.3 inches (0.8 cm) in diameter. Similar to the other scales, the smaller hole is near the distal 

end. Given the similar sizes and close proximity of these scales, it is likely that they came from 

the same knife or fork. Another handle scale made of wood (artifact no. 222-3) was also 

recovered from this area. This scale measures 2 inches (5.2 cm) long, 0.8 inches (1.9 cm) wide 

at the widest and 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) wide at the narrowest. No rivet holes were noted in this 

piece. Thus, there are a minimum of four distinct utensils represented by these scales. 

Figure 5.31. Bone toothbrush head with bristles in place (artifact no. 134-6) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by 

R. Sasaki). 

While forks and knives had similar handles during this period, it is more likely that the 

scales were attached to knives. Forks had been increasing in popularity since circa 1660 but had 

not yet been adopted by all populations (Moore 1995). Unfortunately, handle scales of this type 

are not diagnostic because they can date from the sixteenth century to the present (Moore 1995). 

Similarly, these scales can be interpreted as being tableware based on their proximity to the 

creamware and spoons but they could have also served other utilitarian purposes. 

In addition to the utensil handles, there were several wooden artifacts recovered from lot 

139-2 that appear to be utilitarian. These include a thin piece of wood measuring 3.5 inches (8.9 

cm) long, 1 inch (2.6 cm) wide, and 0.1 inches (0.3 cm) thick with constricted shoulders 0.8 

inches (2 cm) from the end. A wooden disk of similar thickness and measuring 0.7 inches (1.7 
109 

cm) in diameter and a hemispherical wooden rod in three pieces that is 0.6 inches (1.4 cm) wide 

and 4.5inches (10.5 cm) long were also discovered. These items could potentially be gaming 

pieces or mess tags similar to those recovered from Defence. 

Figure 5.32. Selected bone handle scales (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Also from this area are several coffee beans (Coffea sp.) (artifact no. 135-5) that were 

recovered as part of the stern concretion matrix. The specific type of coffee bean has not been 

determined, but the beans were likely for consumption by the crew, based on the coffee grinder 

recovered from the site (see composite artifacts below). 

Coffee was first introduced to the European public from Arabian countries during the 

mid-seventeenth century. Initially, it was popular in England, and by the eighteenth century was 

becoming the caffeinated drink of choice in France. Americans were slower to adopt the 

beverage, but coffee houses were present in most major eighteenth century towns. It was not 

until the first half of the nineteenth century that the former colonies fully adopted coffee. The 

War of 1812 was particularly influential in that regard. The war temporarily denied Americans 

access to tea, causing a shift to coffee that was supported by the popularity of coffee in France 

and the popularity of France in the United States. By the end of the war, coffee beans imported 

from Brazil were closer and cheaper than teas from England and elsewhere (Pendergrast 1999; 

Standage 2005). 

Other organic materials recovered from the wreck include multiple rigging elements, 

including two parceled pieces of rope and the sheaves from a double block. Parceling is the 

process of wrapping a rope to prevent it from chafing. Generally, this was done with canvas, but 

leather was used in this case. One of the parceled ropes (artifact no. 140-2) forms a broken oval 
110 

measuring 14.6 inches by 10.6 inches (37 X 27 cm) (Figure 5.33). The diameter of the rope and 

its leather covering is 2.4 inches (6 cm). Prior to being parceled, the main rope of this artifact 

was wormed with smaller line. The worming line was worked into the grooves of the main line 

in order to give it a smoother surface. The leather parceling was then stitched along the inside of 

the loop, suggesting that the wear surface was to the outside. The shape of the oval and 

impressions in the leather indicate that it was seized in the middle with smaller line, forming two 

lobes in the oval. A review of primary (Biddlecombe 1979[1848]; Fincham 1982[1854]; Steel 

1982[1794]) and secondary (Anderson 1982; Boudriot 1987; Crown Publishers 1978; 

MacGregor 1984a, 1988) sources failed to reveal any direct parallels. However, similar 

configurations were used as a strop to join two blocks into a sister block (Biddlecombe 

1979:Plate IV), guide lines around a capstan (Crown Publishers 1978:06.02), and as gammoning 

for the bowsprit (Anderson 1982:87). Unfortunately, none of these uses are consistent with 

leather parceling laced on the inside, but, of the three options, a strop is the most likely. 

Figure 5.33. Wormed and leather-parceled rope (artifact no. 140-2) (upper scale marked in cm; photograph 

by A. Borgens). 

A similar leather wrapping (artifact no. 601) was recovered from the opposite end of the 

site, south of the anchor. Like artifact number 140-2, this artifact consists of a tube of stitched 
111 

leather. However, it does not contain any rope and is not in the shape of an oval. It measures 

approximately 24 inches (61 cm) in length and 1.6 inches (4.1 cm) in diameter. This artifact is 

likely parceling but it is unclear what line it parceled. As discussed below, the cascabel rope 

(artifact no. 400-8) of the cannon is also leather parceled. 

The supposition that artifact number 140-2 was used as a block strop is supported by the 

proximity of the parceled loop to the remains of a double block (artifact no. 140-1; Figure 5.34). 

Both of these artifacts were recovered from the LART matrix. The block sheave pin measures 4 

inches (10.3 cm) long and 0.8 inches (2.1 cm) in diameter and appears broken on one end, while 

both sheaves are 5.7 inches (14.5 cm) in diameter and 0.8 inches (2 cm) thick. The sheaves are 

remarkably well-preserved as compared to the wood in the remainder of the vessel, suggesting 

that they were turned out of a hard wood distinct from that used in the hull. The tropical 

hardwood lignum vitae was used extensively for block sheaves during the eighteenth and 

nineteenth centuries. 

Figure 5.34. Double sheave and pin (artifact no. 140-1) recovered in double-block configuration (bar equals 2 

cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The final rigging element recovered from 16GM01 appears to be a section of a yard, 

possibly a boom or gaff (artifact no. 142; Figure 5.35). The yard was unearthed when the LART 

removed the stern concretion and a portion was recovered within the LART. The recovered 

piece measures 86.6inches (220 cm) long and 5.9 inches (15 cm) in diameter, but the remainder 

was not measured. Given the diameter of this yard, it is unlikely that it is a mast as masts seldom 

had a diameter less than 6 inches even at the extreme end of a mast for a small vessel (Steel 

1982:50). A diameter of 5.9 inches, however, would not be disproportionate for a yard on a 

vessel of approximately the size of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. The orientation of the yard, 

parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wreck, suggests that it was associated with a fore-and-aft 
112 

sail. According to Steel’s (1982) masting tables, either the boom or gaff for a vessel of Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck’s tonnage (approximately 40–65 tons) would be approximately 6 inches in 

diameter between the third-quarter and end of the yard. The position of the recovered piece is 

consistent with this portion of the boom or gaff. While all conclusions regarding the rigging of 

the vessel are tentative, if the preceding is taken as true and the parceled rope is in fact a strop, it 

is possible that the strop and/or sheaves came from the vang-pendant or, more likely, the halyard 

of the spanker sail (Biddlecombe 1979: Plate X). 

Figure 5.35. Boom or gaff (artifact no. 142) (photograph by A. Borgens). 

Several other organic artifacts were recovered from the wreck site, including several 

fragments of flat leather (artifact nos. 209, 223-5, 225-11) recovered from east of the weapons 

box. No construction features, such as stitching, have yet been identified. Consequently, the use 

of this leather is unknown, but given its proximity to the spyglass, it may have been used to wrap 

this valuable instrument. Additionally, the only fragment of rope (artifact no. 225-6) not 

associated with the cannon or leather parceling was recovered from the same vicinity as the 

leather. This small rope fragment measures 1.5 inches (3.9 cm) long and 0.25 inches (0.7 cm) in 

diameter and is made of two 0.13-inch (0.3 cm) diameter strings. A total of 46 unidentified 

fragments of generally worm-eaten wood were also recovered (artifact nos. 125-4, 134-10, 220, 

223-8, 225-5, and 225-8). While several of these pieces retained preserved surfaces that may 

ultimately lead to their identification either as a portion of the hull, a container, or another 

function they have not yet been identified. Four similarly unidentified leather fragments (artifact 

nos. 134-5 and 139-3) were also recovered. Finally, an unmodified faunal remain (artifact no. 

125-3) measuring 1 X 0.7 X 0.7 inches (2.5 X 1.9 X 1.9 cm) was recovered. 

5.2.5 Composites 

The three composite artifacts not included in the instrument category include a watch 

face and bezel (artifact no. 221), a carpenter’s plane (artifact no. 218), and a coffee grinder 

(artifact no. 210). The enameled iron watch face (introduced circa 1720) measures 1.9 inches 

(4.8 cm) in diameter, suggesting that it is from a pocket watch rather than a wristwatch (Jagger 

1988:52) (Figure 5.36). The central hole measures 0.13 inches (0.33 cm) in diameter and is 

accompanied by a slightly smaller (0.12-inch [0.31-cm]) hole near the numeral “2”. The 

presence of two holes indicates that the watch was key-wound. The chipped enamel around the 

off-center hole suggests that the owner was often less than careful while inserting the key. The 
113 

face is hand painted with Arabic numbers. The hour is indicated by large numbers while a 

smaller outer ring indicates the minutes with ticks for each minute and the appropriate Arabic 

numeral at ten minute intervals. The associated bezel that joined the face to the case measures 

2.1 inches (5.3 cm) in diameter and is 0.12 inches (0.31 cm) thick. Painted enamel dials lasted 

into the 1850s, but minutes indicated on the outer ring were only popular during the mid 

eighteenth century before being replaced by a secondary movement known as a regulator dial 

during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Bailey 1975:190; Bruton 1967:Plates 

85, 89; Clutton 1973:174, 199; Jagger 1988:52, 58). Arabic numerals for the hours never 

surpassed Roman numerals during the historic period but were particularly rare prior to 1780 

(Jagger 1988:52). Key winding, either through the face or the case, remained prevalent into the 

1880s (Jagger 1988:57). A similar face without the minutes was noted on a Swiss watch of the 

1789–1802 period (Bruton 1967: Plate 107). 

Figure 5.36. Pocket watch face and bezel (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The only tool analyzed thus far from 16GM01 is a carpenter’s plane (artifact no. 218) that 

was situated approximately 2.5 ft (0.76 m) southeast of the weapons box (Figure 5.37) (a chisel 

(artifact no. 135-15) was recovered from the stern concretion but has not been analyzed). The 

stock measures 7.4 inches (18.8 cm) long and 2.8 inches (7.1 cm) high. It is lozenge-shaped with 

flat ends measuring 3 inches (7.6 cm) at the widest point. The wedge is 4.7 inches (12 cm) long, 

2.5 inches (6.4 cm) wide, and 0.8 inches (2 cm) thick. No evidence of the iron was recovered. 

The morphology of the plane is not diagnostic for period, since similar planes were in use as 

early as the Tudor Period in England. However, the shape does indicate that the plane was used 

for smoothing (Bealer 1989:169; Mercer 1960:110). While planes are not commonly recovered 

from shipwreck sites, they were part of the ship carpenter’s tool kit (McDermott 2000; 

McKewan 2002). During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, ship carpenters 

carried several types of planes, including smoothing, jack, fore, grooving, and long varieties, but 
114 

smoothing were the most widely-used planes (Bealer 1989:167; McDermott 2000:223–228). 

The plane suggests that other tools were also carried for basic ship maintenance and may have 

been part of a tool kit stored in the cabin. 

Figure 5.37. Carpenter’s smoothing plane (artifact no. 218) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

The final composite artifact is a small grinding mill (artifact no. 210), which has 

tentatively been identified as a coffee mill based on its size and morphology (Figure 5.38). This 

artifact was recovered from the eastern side of the debris field approximately 2.3 ft (0.7 m) 

southeast of the weapons box and consists of a wooden box with an affixed copper alloy bowl 

and iron grinding apparatus. The square box measures 4.1 inches (10.4 cm) on a side and 3.1 

inches (7.9-cm) high with a slightly larger top piece that measures 5.9 inches (15 cm) on a side. 

Two small (0.4 in [1 cm]) projections on one side of the box suggest that a drawer for catching 

grounds was originally slotted into the lower portion of the box. The copper alloy bowl 

measures 4 inches (10.3 cm) in diameter and 1.6 inches (4 cm) high. Within the bowl is an iron 

concretion that is likely the grinding apparatus. The concretion has evidence of a handle and 

space below the apparatus where the grounds could fall into the box. A hole in the center of the 

concretion may have been its pivot point and corresponds with a larger hole in the box. 

Domestic coffee mills were in existence as early as 1700 but did not proliferate until circa 

1800, when small utensils became more prevalent. Eighteenth-century coffee mills were 

generally made of a turned exotic hardwood, typically lignum vitae or mahogany. These mills 

were often prized as much for appearance as function and were kept on display. Cast iron mills 
115 

were introduced in 1815 and quickly became common. While the later mills included electric 

motors, the basic shape of coffee mills did not change until the late twentieth century (Eveleigh 

1997; Fearn 1999). The mill recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck may be an intermediate 

example, employing separate bowl and box construction in a plain and utilitarian form, 

suggesting that it postdates the period when coffee was an expensive luxury but pre-dates the 

advent of all-cast iron mills. 

Figure 5.38. Coffee mill (artifact no. 210) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

5.2.6 Arms and Munitions 

By Amy Borgens 

The Mardi Gras vessel was carrying a quantity of arms and ammunition, much of which 

still resides on the ocean floor. The artifacts identified on the site include a 6-pounder 

‘merchant’ cannon, a box of mixed arms and edged weapons, multiple iron artillery shot, over 

1000 lead shot, and almost 60 gunflints. These artifacts were distributed throughout the site at 

two primary locations: approximately amidships on the vessel and towards what is tentatively 

identified as the stern (Figure 5.39). 

In the early years of the nineteenth century, an armed vessel was not unusual in the Gulf 

of Mexico; it was practically a necessity. International warfare diffused into the Gulf as 

European nations sought to gain possession of Gulf and Caribbean territories. The U.S. conflict 

with Great Britain and a multitude of Latin American insurrections added to the heightened naval 
116 

activity in the region. Merchant vessels needed weapons and munitions in order to deter possible 

attackers, particularly the privateer fleets exploiting the political discord. 

Figure 5.39. Arms distribution at wreck site (illustration by A. Borgens, after B. Ford). 

5.2.6.1 Large Artillery and Shot 

The volatility of seafaring, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, often necessitated the 

outfitting of shipboard artillery. The Mardi Gras Shipwreck was not an exception, being armed 

with at least one cannon. Cannon first came into general use during the Hundred Years' War 

(1339–1453). It was during this period as well, in the early fifteenth century, that cast iron balls 

were utilized as projectiles, replacing those of stone (Manucy 1949:63). During the reign of 

Queen Elizabeth (1558–1603), 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 32-, and 42-pound caliber cannon were 

developed (Manucy 1949:41). The calibers were adopted by the succeeding Oliver Cromwell 

government and were used by the English through the eighteenth century. In France, Louis XIV 

(1643–1715) standardized a set of calibers distinct from those of the English guns: 4-, 8-, 12-, 

16-, 24-, 32-, and 48-pounders (Manucy 1949:41). Designs were fairly standardized by the mid 

eighteenth century resulting in a gun of much cleaner lines than the cannon produced a century 

earlier. Although as yet there had not been a sharp break with the older traditions, the shape and 

weight of the cannon in relation to the stresses of firing were becoming increasingly important in 

their design (Manucy 1949:41). 

Along the northeast U.S. coast, colonial trading vessels were frequently armed. Shaped 

by an environment of conflict and warfare during successive wars with the French and the 

American Revolution, defensive shipboard artillery was viewed more as a necessity than as a 

luxury. All but the smallest-sized merchant vessels were designed to carry practical armament 

(Chapelle 1935:24). 
117 

Not unlike the atmosphere of the colonial U.S., commercial shipping routes in the 

eighteenth and early nineteenth century Gulf of Mexico were vulnerable to foreign and internal 

conflict. The depredations on shipping within the region were immense as conflicts between the 

foreign powers encouraged an already-rich environment for privateering. English, French, and 

Spanish warfare within Gulf coastal territories increased the presence of armed vessels and 

likewise created a threat to commercial shipping. Though privateers often professed a national 

or regional affiliation and carried letters of marque, in actuality they were somewhat 

indiscriminate. For these reasons, the bulk of commercial vessels in the region likely carried 

armament. 

In addition to (and sometimes instead) of large cannon, shipboard artillery could include 

carronades, swivel guns, gunnades, and in some cases mortars. Prior to the invention of the 

carronade in 1774, the mortar was the only other large-caliber smoothbore gun used as a ship’s 

heavy artillery besides the cannon (Chapelle 1935:56; Bryce 1984:43). Small mortars were 

sometimes used on more conventional three-masted ships, but were more frequently the 

armament on special purpose-made vessels. These small mortar boats, called a bomb vessel or 

bomb ketch, were not often used by U.S. naval forces of the period (Bryce 1984:43; Chapelle 

1939:56). 

The carronade was first employed by the British Navy in 1779 and usually ranged in 

caliber from 6- to 68-pounders (Chapelle 1935:56). Carronades did not have trunnions; instead, 

they were mounted through a lug underneath the barrel. These types of guns were frequently 

part of the complement on smaller vessels. A single carronade or pivot-mounted long gun was 

often the sole large artillery on slavers, used mainly to deter hijacking efforts. Many slavers 

favored carronades because these pieces did not require a large crew (Chapelle 1935:161). 

A gunnade was an adaptation of the carronade, with the substitution of trunnions in order 

to lower the center of gravity. It was essentially a short merchant gun in a different guise. The 

term ‘insurance’ gun is usually reserved for the gunnade but was also applied to the shorter 

cannons manufactured for the merchant market (Brown 2007). 

Swivel guns were placed upon yoke-like swivel mounts instead of being supported by 

carriages. The swivel mount attached to the weapon at the trunnion and was set into an opening 

in the gunwale or on a supportive wood stand. This small-caliber weapon was capable of 

directing fire towards enemy ships, boarding parties, or inward towards the vessel’s own deck. 

The swivel gun fired small iron or lead shot (Bryce 1984:43). 

An ongoing study by Amy Borgens compiled from primary and secondary sources 

regarding maritime vessels in the western Gulf of Mexico between 1800 and 1850 was queried 

for armed vessels. Of the 1546 vessels currently in the database, 566 were in use between 1800 

and 1830. At least 217 of these vessels were documented has having been armed. For 85 

vessels, the source material provided general characteristics and numbers of the shipboard 

artillery (Table 5.3). 

Certain vessels (from Table 5.3) such as the frigate, brig-of-war, corvette, and ship were 

purpose-made warships and carried large numbers of heavy artillery. The revenue cutter was 

also outfitted with a small complement of arms, though these were frequently made of bronze 

instead of iron (Chapelle 1935:193–94). The most numerous types of vessels in the Gulf of 

Mexico, schooners and brigs, were likely privately-outfitted so the size and type of artillery was 

variable. The smaller schooners did not carry a canon larger than an 18-pounder, though 
118 

armament could also include swivel guns and carronades. Brigs were equipped with similar 

weapons, though both the quantity and caliber of the arms were often greater.

Table 5.3 

Armament of Gulf of Mexico Vessels, 1800–1830 

Type of Vessel* Number Number 

of Guns Types of Armament 

Felucca 5 1–4 8-pounder, 12-pounder 

Pilot boat (unspecified) 1 1 9-pounder swivel 

Schooner 29 1–18 swivel, 4-lb swivel, 6-pounder, 8-lb carronade, 

9-pounder, 12-pounder, 14-pounder, 18-pounder

Sloop-of-war 3 10–20 Unspecified 

Brig 19 1–24 swivel, 6-pounder, 12-pounder, 16-pounder,18-

pounder, 24-pounder carronade 

Cutter-naval 1 16 6-pounders, 12-pounders, 24-pounders 

Corvette 5 18–28 

pivot gun, 9-pounder, 12-pounder, 32-lb 

carronade, 32-lb gunnade, 32-pounder, 36-

pounder 

Frigate 11 36–64 unspecified 

Brig-of-war 1 74 unspecified 

Ship 3 68–74 unspecified 

Steamer 1 4 unspecified 

The cannon (Artifact no. 400) recovered from Area 4 of the wreck site is currently 

undergoing conservation at the CRL (Figure 5.40). The button of the cascabel, became detached 

from the artifact upon its arrival at the conservation facility while being moved into a storage vat. 

The removal of extraneous concretions from the cannon revealed the end of the muzzle was 

plugged with a tampion (artifact no. 400-4). A long, tightly braided rope 24 inches (61.0 cm) in 

length was inside the bore of the cannon (artifact no. 400-5). The 0.35-inch (0.88-cm) diameter 

rope is comprised of three strands, each measuring .18 inches (0.45 cm) in diameter. The rope is 

incomplete and broken at one end. No other artifacts were contained within the bore. 

The absence of wadding, shot, and gunpowder demonstrates that the cannon was not 

primed for firing. Fragmentary bits of fiber, perhaps fabric (artifact no. 400-6) were also 

concreted to the touchhole. This material may have been related to the plug for the touchhole. A 

plug was stuffed into the touch-hole after firing to prevent the escape of gas which might burn 

out the vent. A plug inserted in the touch-hole when the cannon was not in use kept moisture 

from accumulating in the bore of the gun. 

On 13 September 2007 the cannon was temporarily removed from conservation so that 

additional mechanical cleaning and technical recording could be conducted by John Hamilton 

and Amy Borgens. At this stage in the conservation process, almost all of the surface concretion 

had sloughed from the artifact. Therefore, measurements recorded from the cannon in 

September 2007 will not fundamentally differ from its eventual post-conservation dimensions. 

The cannon measures 5.08 ft (154.84 cm) in overall length. The length of the cannon 

measures from the face of the muzzle to the rear of base ring (the diagnostic length of 

measurement) is 4.5 ft (137.16 cm) (Figure 5.41). The diameters of the swell of the muzzle and 
119 

base ring are 7.23 inches (18.35 cm) and 12.64 inches (32.10 cm), respectively. The bore of the 

cannon measures 3.73 inches (9.47 cm). The diameters of the trunnions are 3.5 inches (9.1 cm) 

each. Both trunnions are marked with manufacturing designations. The left trunnion is engraved 

Figure 5.40. Artifact number 400: (a) at 4000 feet and (b) during conservation. 

2012 CLYDE 1797 and the right trunnion 6 P and 8-2-0 (Figure 5.42). These marks indicated 

the cannon is a 6-pounder, of 8 hundredweights and 2 quarters (952 lbs) that was manufactured 

in 1797 by the Clyde Company (Brown 2007). The serial number 2012 indicated its position on 

the list of Clyde castings. Its length of 4.5 ft (1.4 m) demonstrated that this is a typical gun sold 

for the merchant market, as it is shorter than the 6-ft (1.8-m) length required for the equivalentcaliber government cannon (Brown 2007). Two features of the cannon also allude to its later 

eighteenth-century manufacture. The band between the vent and reinforce is flat and less 

elaborate than earlier examples. The breech and the cascabel also appeared to be modeled after a 

carronade. These latter characteristics were not adopted by British guns until the late 1780s 

(Brown 2007). 
120 

Figure 5.41. Mardi Gras cannon (illustration by A. Borgens; nomenclature from Manucy 1949:89). 

Figure 5.42. Engraved trunnions (illustration by A. Borgens). 
121 

Clyde Company, of Glasgow, Scotland, was founded by Thomas Edington in 1786. In 

1794 he offered to supply 12- and 18-pounder guns to the British Board of Ordnance. Edington 

successfully passed the Board’s proofs in 1795 for a consignment of 500 tons of iron guns, 

initiating the company’s casting of government arms. Clyde Company manufactured both largeand small-caliber weapons, though specializing in the smaller guns. In addition to producing 

Board of Ordnance arms, Clyde cast carronades, gunnades, and small-caliber guns for the 

merchant market. In 1805 Edington left Clyde to form his own ironworks (Brown 2007). 

Large extant artillery manufactured by Clyde Company are located at the Barracks, Berwick 

upon Tweed (1799); the Army Museum in Vienna; Princess Royal Fortress in Australia (a 

gunnade dated 1804); the wreck of Pomone (a 32-pounder carronade, 1803), and two unknown 

shipwrecks from the Bahamas and New Jersey (gunnades) (Brown 2007). The Clyde weapon at 

Berwick is a merchant gun dating to approximately 1799. Thomas Edington continued to 

manufacture this style of merchant gun after establishing his own gun works. An Edington 

cannon from the Culzean Castle on the Scottish Coast (1813) is similar to those produced during 

his tenure at the Clyde foundry. The cannon from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck is the earliest 

example of a Clyde gun Ms. Brown has recorded (Brown 2007).

5.2.6.2 Related Artifact Materials 

The tampion (artifact no. 400-5) was used to plug the cannon’s muzzle and prevent the 

accumulation of moisture in the bore. This could be used both when the cannon was stored for a 

period of disuse or also to prevent seawater from entering an inactive loaded cannon. There is a 

long tradition of shipboard cannon stoppage. Tampion artifacts have been recovered, in situ, 

from the weapons of vessels such as the Elizabethan Period wreck at Alderney (1592), the vessel 

believed to be Queen Anne’s Revenge (1718), Machault (1760), and Monitor (1862). 

Three principal gun carriages types were used to mount muzzle-loading cannon: siege, 

garrison, and field. Other secondary carriages included those made for carronades or mortars. 

Garrison carriages were used for land fortifications and shipboard artillery. They were stronglyconstructed due to the weight of the guns and also to minimize recoil (Wilkinson-Latham 

1973:51). There was little variation in the design of garrison carriages for sea use with the 

exception that the trucks (wheels) were made of wood instead of iron. This change in material 

protected the deck and also facilitated repairs, which could be conducted by a ship’s carpenter 

(Bryce 1984:43; Wilkinson-Latham 1973:60). In some examples, the rear trucks could be 

removed and replaced with chocks. This variation of the carriage, known as the rear chock 

carriage, reduced the recoil when firing (Wilkinson-Latham 1973:60). Shipboard gun carriages 

were also equipped with ring bolts and hemp tackle as another means to check recoil in the 

confined area of the ship’s gun deck (Bryce 1984:43). Different types of naval gun carriages are 

illustrated in Figure 5.43. 

Spanish gun carriages of the eighteenth century were more complex than U.S. and 

English counterparts. The side pieces, cheeks, on Spanish carriages were fashioned from a 

single piece of timber and required a larger degree of craftsmanship. U.S. and English examples 

were composed of multiple timbers mortised or jogged together (Manucy 1949:50). The timber 

used in the construction of the carriage had regional variations. British specification of the mid 

eighteenth century required dry elm (though some were made of oak), while the U.S. used oak, 

the French elm, and the Spanish mahogany (Manucy 1949:49).
122 

Figure 5.43. Naval Gun Carriages. (a) typical naval carriage (Muller 1995:94 [1780]) (b) early nineteenthcentury 12-pounder carronade (Cooke 1989:44) (c) bed and slide mount for a 24-pounder carronade circa 

1820 (Clowes 1900:540). 

A portion of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck cannon carriage was concreted to the cannon 

(Figure 5.44). Due to the upside-down deposition of the cannon on the ocean floor, much of the 

carriage was originally exposed in the water column. It is unlikely that much remains of the 

fragments on the ocean floor, as the recovered portion shows extensive boring mollusk damage. 

The fragments were concreted to the cannon at the trunnion and are parts of the carriage cheek 

and capsquare. The larger fragment, Artifact number 400-1, was heavily-concreted but measures 

20.8 in X 11.5 inches (52.7 X 29.1 cm) after cleaning. This concretion contains a capsquare. 

The smaller carriage piece, no. 400-2, is 11.4 X 6.5 inches (29.0 X 16.36 cm) and was located 

directly aft of the trunnion channel. It is broken at the juncture between the trunnion channel and 

carriage cheek. The carriage was constructed of black walnut (Juglans nigra). Iron brackets, 

now missing, reinforced the cheek timbers in the area of the capsquare fasteners. The carriage 

was inset at the location of each bracket. A small truck of 5.8-inch (14.8-cm) diameter, possibly 

belonging to this carriage, and a leather-parceled becket for the breeching rope were concreted to 

the button of the cascabel. A likely reconstruction of the becket is illustrated in Figure 5.45. 

The thickness of the waterlogged carriage cheek varies between 3.8 to 3.9 inches (9.72 

and 9.88 cm), roughly corresponding to the 3.73 inches (9.47 cm) bore of the cannon. The 
123 

cheeks are the thickness of the caliber of the gun. A gun carriage was designed to be 

proportional to the cannon it was supporting (Manucy 1949:49). This was obtained by 

measuring the distance from trunnion to base ring of the gun, the diameter of the base ring, and 

the diameter of the second reinforcement ring. The resulting quadrilateral figure was used to 

fashion a carriage to fit the gun (Manucy 1949:49). The form of the carriage suggested it was a 

garrison-type carriage commonly used for naval gunnery. A reconstruction of the cannon and 

carriage illustrate the orientation of the artifacts (see Figure 5.45). 

Figure 5.44. Gun carriage artifacts 400-1 and 400-2 (illustration by A. Borgens). 
124 

Figure 5.45. Reconstructed cannon and carriage (illustration by A. Borgens). 

Three cast iron cannon shot have been retrieved from the stern concretion, and assigned 

artifact no. 135-2, 135-2.1 and 135-2.2. The largest has a diameter of 3.5 inches (8.9 cm), 

consistent with those used for 6-pounder cannon. A slightly smaller shot at a diameter of 3.2 

inches (8.1 cm) is closer in size to those used for a 5-pounder cannon (Wilkinson-Latham 1973: 

26). The smallest of these (artifact no. 135-2.2) has a diameter of 2.8 inches (7.1 cm), indicating 

it was a 3-pounder. Multiple iron and lead shot are still contained throughout the concretion, 

including barshot (Figure 5.46). While not fully excavated, the estimated diameters of exposed 

shot indicate use for different caliber cannon. A second area of assorted cannon shot was located 

in Area 3, next to the bulkhead, and conjoined to the musket box (Figure 5.47). These shot were 

not removed from the wreck site. Both small-and large-caliber iron cannon shot were observed 

within the vicinity of the musket box. 

The barshot (two identified, artifact nos. 135-27 and 135-78) was discovered in a portion 

of the concretion that was separated during the movement of the concretion to the CRL. The 

barshot has not been completely extracted, so it is not known if these are complete examples. 

Barshot was made in several different forms and was employed to cut the rigging and demast an 

adversary vessel. It is possible that fragmentary shot from this concretion was used as langrage 

(loose objects fired from a cannon as anti-personnel shrapnel). 
125 

Figure 5.46. Sketch of stern concretion (artifact no. 135) showing the distribution of shot (illustration by A. 

Borgens). 

Figure 5.47. Arrangement of iron shot. 
126 

5.2.6.3 Small Arms 

One of the most intriguing artifacts from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, a box of mixed arms 

and edged weapons, was not recovered from the site. Such weaponry can contain important 

diagnostic information such as national affiliations, dates, manufacturers, and military 

designations. However, video imagery and underwater still photography have provided some 

general information regarding the box contents. The longarms contained within the box are of 

varying lengths and have furniture manufactured of both ferrous and cupreous metal. This 

indicates that the longarms represent a variety of weapons that could vary by date, general type 

(muskets, carbines, etc), and nationality. In addition to the longarms, pistols and edged weapons 

are also present. This mixed assemblage may be indicative of civilian shipboard arms or a cargo 

of assorted pieces carried by gunrunners and privateers. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, a vessel with a collection of arms was not unusual. The economic 

damage levied against commercial shipping in the region by privateering and international 

warfare forced European and U.S. naval intervention throughout the early nineteenth century. 

The United States and Britain, still malcontent after the American Revolution and War of 1812, 

often supplied weapons to insurgent Latin American revolutionaries; each trying to achieve 

supremacy or favor in the Gulf. Guns were an important tool for establishing and maintaining an 

autonomous principality. Without this precious commodity, a military coup or uprising was 

largely ineffectual. For example, an early liberation of Cartagena in 1815 by Louis Michael 

Aury could not be sustained because the insurgents lacked gunpowder, thus rendering the 

flintlock arms useless. Aury was forced to retreat and transport over 2000 Cartagena refugees to 

Haiti before the approach of the Spanish fleet (Faye 1941:614-620). It is no surprise that one of 

the major financial enterprises undertaken in 1823 by the newly independent Mexico was the 

purchase of weapons and ships from England (Castañeda 1970:304). 

Figure 5.48. Focal points of the weapons trade. Graphic shows directionality and not specific routes 

(illustration by A. Borgens). 
127 

Large quantities of weapons were transported across the Gulf and the Caribbean from 

Spanish, U.S., English, and German origins (Figure 5.48). Regulations established in 1772 

required Spanish colonial regiments in New Spain to carry standardized military arms. 

According to Title Four of the Regulations, each presidio soldier was to be armed with a 

broadsword, lance, shield, musket, and pistols. The regulation musket was to have a .66-caliber 

barrel with a Spanish-style (miquelet) lock (Oficina de la Aguila 1965:21 [1834]). According to 

Faulk, despite the regulation’s insistence on weapons with Spanish locks, weapons of French and 

British manufacture were commonplace (Faulk 1971:56). In 1817, for example, Joaquín de 

Arredonde allocated 100 new English weapons along with 30,000 shot and 1200 gunflints to the 

Spanish governor of Coahuila (Martínez 1817). 

Spanish attempts to arm its under-equipped solders were futile at best. The new arms 

mandated in the 1772 Regulations were only just being delivered, on the frigates Princes and

Aranzazu, in March of 1790 (Sánchez 1990:74; Faulk 1971:56). In spite of the insistence on 

regulation arms, the predominant firearm used by the presidio soldier was the Spanish escopeta. 

There were many variations in barrel length and stock design, but, frequently, this weapon was a 

smoothbore muzzle-loading musket or carbine with a Catalan stock and a Spanish (miquelet) 

lock (Brinckerhoff and Faulk 1965:73). 

Many of the forces in New Spain were armed with the Model 1757 and 1791 military 

muskets, including Spanish expeditionary forces, colonial regiments, and militia in Mexico, 

Louisiana and Florida (Lull and Hefter 1964:79–80; Brinkerhoff and Chamberlain 1972:18). 

The 1757 musket was a .69-caliber weapon with an overall length of 59 1⁄4 inches (150.5 cm) that 

was an almost direct copy of the French Model 1756 military musket. The barrel was octagonal 

in shape at the breech but tapered to round. The flat lockplate was French in design with a ring 

jaw screw (Pérez 1999:35; Brinkerhoff and Chamberlain 1972:28–30). 

The Spanish conducted trade with Native American tribes who carried superior-quality 

arms purchased from traders. Prior to 1763 and the defeat of the French in North America, trade 

guns were French in manufacture, however after 1763, British traders supplied the trade arms 

(Brinckerhoff and Faulk 1965:90). In 1786, the Spanish traded Spanish arms as an attempt to 

control the distribution of weapons to the tribes. The supply of munitions, in addition to spare 

parts for maintenance of the arms, could only be acquired from the Spanish who were 

determined not to provide these services once the arms were traded. It was believed the 

unfamiliarity with the miquelet-lock muskets would cause tribes to be less effective with the 

weapons. 

This theory did not work in practice, as the tribes refused the arms. By the 1790s, Spain 

traded weapons of English manufacture (Russell 1960:37). The Spanish government issued 

permits to traders such as The Company of Explorers of Upper Missouri (in 1795) and Auguste 

Choteau for the establishment of trading posts in New Spain (Hanson 1992:8). Surplus Brown 

Bess carbines and muskets were frequently sold and used by the Spanish. These firearms 

furnished much of the supply for the Southwest (Hanson 1992:8). It is unlikely the traders of 

New Spain contracted for English “Northwest guns,” which were manufactured for trade in the 

New World. These weapons were new and, thus, were governed by import restrictions and 

would have sold best where there was a ready market (Hanson 1992:8). 

New Orleans, as well as other important Atlantic ports, was instrumental in providing 

arms to Latin America and neighboring territories. This U.S. aid, though not publicly 
128 

acknowledged, was not concealed. In late 1815 and early 1816, a barrage of arms supplies 

emanated from New Orleans and other sources. General Simon Bolívar organized another 

expedition to liberate Venezuela in early 1815. A large supply of munitions was expected from 

England, though Bolívar attacked Cartagena during March 1815, months before its arrival. The 

English arms were transported on the U.S. vessel General Gates, which traveled to England and 

then sailed under the British registry name of Dardo. Dardo arrived at Cartagena in July 1815 

with a cargo that included 15,000 European muskets, 400 carbines, 400 sabres, 200 pairs of 

pistols, 20,000 pounds of powder, and 3 printing presses (demonstrating that the pen is indeed 

mightier than the sword) (Slatta and De Grummond 2003:130; Faye 1941:616–617). By the time 

of its arrival, Bolívar had already signed a treaty and departed for Jamaica. Luis Brión, refused 

to sell Dardo’s weapons to the remaining insurgents, commanded by Aury, as they did not have 

funds. Dardo departed for Haiti on 11 November, where the cargo was transferred to the 

Royalist arsenal. Two thousand of the muskets were later released, transported on the vessel 

Popa, and sold on the Mexican coast in January 1816 (Faye 1941:616, 621). 

Unofficial U.S. military support of insurgent groups was also provided by Commodore 

Daniel Patterson of the U.S. naval station at New Orleans. In September 1815, José Alvarez de 

Toledo and several Americans departed New Orleans on Lafitte’s privateer Petite Milan and 

took onboard an arms cargo (containing 1,200 muskets) either further downstream or at 

Barataria. The vessel rendezvoused with the U.S. vessel Firebrand and arrived off Boquilla de 

Piedras on Oct 6, 1815. José Manuel Herrera had $28,000 in specie, though he refused to pay for 

the cargo when it was delivered, instead offering to produce the funds when he returned to New 

Orleans (Warren 1938a:208; Davis 2005:262). Petite Milan would continue to be used to ship 

munitions to Mexican revolutionaries until her seizure and auction in January 1816 (Davis 

2005:264). 

Patterson would again support insurgent activities in December 1815, outfitting the ketch 

Surprise to carry arms, a printing press, a proclamation, and dispatches urging the Mexican 

Congress to concentrate on the capture of Tampico and Veracruz. This vessel returned to New 

Orleans on 20 December with $13,000 to be used to fund the revolution (Warren 1938a:208; 

Davis 2005:263, 280). Patterson not only used Firebrand as a dispatch boat for the Mexican 

Revolutionaries, he also offered to equip the Baratarian schooner General Bolívar for service. 

Bolívar was sold to Abner Duncan and it conducted trade with the insurgents under the guise 

General Jackson. Patterson likely had a share in the profits (Warren 1938a:208). 

Patterson, in late 1816, created a small international incident by again allowing the U.S. 

vessel Firebrand to escort General Jackson to Boquilla de Piedras. The cargo could not be 

offloaded at Boquilla so the vessels sailed in search of an insurgent port. The two vessels were 

attacked and captured by the Spanish squadron on 27 August 1816. The demasted General 

Jackson was able to escape, though the vessel was seriously damaged; the captain of Firebrand 

was detained for 24 hours. The incident was seen in the United States as an unauthorized attack 

on a U.S. vessel (Warren 1938a:211–12).

In August and November (1816) General Jackson and Eugene (under the guise Rebecca) 

transported more arms and supplies from New Orleans to Boquilla de Piedras. The cargo of 

General Jackson included 1200 muskets and 4 field cannon. Rebecca likewise carried 10 cases 

of muskets/rifles, 36,000 gunflints, 80 kegs of powder, 2 cases of sabres, and a cannon (Davis 

2005:303, 309). 
129 

In November 1816, Pierre Lafitte had 500 worn and damaged muskets from the Battle of 

New Orleans repaired in New Orleans in order to ship them to Mexico. Lafitte took the weapons 

to a local gunsmith, Theon Barbaret, for repair, stating they were for General Humbert. He had 

difficulty arranging transportation for the weapons (Davis 2005:265); he intended to transport 

them to Mexico, but Herrera and Toledo were depleted of funds. 

In addition to assisting and supplying Mexican insurgents, Pierre and Jean Lafitte were 

also employed as Spanish spies, providing details of the planned expeditions. In November 

1816, Pierre Lafitte informed ‘Spanish spymaster,’ Antonio de Sedella, of a contract for 29,000 

muskets arranged between Toledo and New Orleans merchants Vincent Nolte, Abner Duncan, 

John B. Gilly and Thomas Hartman for $12 apiece. These weapons were to be transported along 

with 9000 saddles to the Mexican coast (Davis 2005:276). 

More U.S-purchased arms would be transported to Mexican sources from New York and 

Baltimore. José Manuel de Herrera was attempting to establish an Independent Mexico at 

Galveston Island that could be used to stage a military expedition against Spain. Aury was 

appointed governor of the Mexican island. Francisco Xavier Mina, on board Calypso, arrived at 

Galveston in November 1816. Calypso, along with arms, munitions, supplies, and $110,000, 

was provided by Baltimore merchants to assist Mina with the expedition focused on Soto la 

Marina. More U.S. support for Mina’s expedition arrived from New York on board the schooner 

Ellen Tooker in January 1817. Ellen Tooker, bound for Nautla, joined Mina's flotilla (Warren 

1938c:19). The cargo contained 84 cases of muskets, 52 kegs of musket flints, 20 cases of 

musket balls, 792 kegs of powder, 25 barrels of pitch, 15 cases of sabres and pistols, 12 cases of 

cloth, 1800 knapsacks, 1800 canteens, and 25 tons of iron (Faye 1939:1091). 

In the months prior to the Treaty of Cordóba, which granted Mexico independence on 24 

August 1821, another shipment of arms was transported from New Orleans to the Gulf of 

Mexico (Sánchez 1990:140). The vessel Nancy Eleanor sailed from Charleston to New Orleans 

in February 1821. Nancy Eleanor offloaded her cargo and, after port inspection, picked up 

additional crewmen and a cargo of provisions and arms. Pierre Lafitte transported the cargo to 

Isla de Mujeres (off the Yucatan Peninsula) in March, then loaded a cargo of salt and dyewood 

and returned to Charleston (Davis 2005:447). 

In 1822 and 1823, the newly-independent Mexico pursued arms supplies through both 

U.S. and British sources. Initial contracts were negotiated with Hawks and Hanna in October of 

1822 for the purchase of guns, ammunition and clothing in the United States. During the 

previous month, José Félix Trespalacios sent Juan Almonte to purchase supplies at New Orleans. 

In March 1823, Almonte communicated his failure to purchase the arms; however, another 

separate shipment of U.S. manufactured arms was purchased for the Mexican military in 1823. 

This cargo of naval stores was transported on the American frigate Fortina from Philadelphia 

(Jackson 2003:22; Bidwell 1960:121). 

The difficulty of purchasing arms in the United States, caused in part by the rejection of 

the Mexican currency, may have prompted the Mexican government to pursue loans from 

England for the purchase of arms and naval vessels. The Mexican Government under Guadalupe 

Victoria considered loans offered by the London House of Barclay, Herring, Richardson, & 

Company and B.A. Goldschmidt & Company. The Barclay proposal was accepted on 18 August 

1823, extending Mexico a loan of £2,500,000 at the rate of £100,000 a month (Turlington 

1930:30–31). A draft of the contract for the purchase of fusils, carbines, pistols, and swords 
130 

from Barclay, Herring, Richardson & Company was transmitted on 5 December 1823 

(Turlington 1930:30–31). 

In 1824, Mexico began to acquire the new arms. Of the arms contracted with Barclay, 

Herring, Richardson, & Co., 7500 muskets and 200 swords were to be shipped from England on 

29 July 1824 (de Michelena 1824). On 15 August 1824, the ship Prince of Wales departed from 

Antwerp, Belgium for Alvarado, Mexico, laden with 30 boxes of muskets (Gorostiza 1824). 

These muskets were comparable to those of the Tower of London and were additionally 

described as the best that Mexico had yet acquired. A similar shipment of the arms received in 

Columbia was described as excellent (de Michelena 1824). 

It is likely these British-contract arms were surplus military muskets that were in 

abundant supply following the end of the Napoleonic wars. Faced with the onset of war in 1793, 

the Board of Ordnance reviewed its weapons stores, and it determined the supply was 

insufficient for the needs of its military. In order to supplement the shortage of arms, the Board 

of Ordnance purchased the collection of Windus Pattern muskets from the East India Company. 

To facilitate arms supplies and maintenance, British contractors were instructed to manufacture 

the British military muskets to conform to the East India Company design. At least 676,800 of 

these India Pattern arms were produced by the East India Company and approximately 2,800,000 

were manufactured for the British Board of Ordnance (Harding 1997:50). The India Pattern 

musket was a .76-caliber, smoothbore musket with an overall length of 55 inches (139.7 cm). 

The flintlock lock had both a swan-neck cock (1771–1812) and ring-neck cock (1813–1818) 

(Harding 1997:50). By November of 1817, the Board of Ordnance was offering surplus India 

Pattern arms for sale to the East India Company; however, the East India Company refused to 

purchase the guns (Oriental and Indian Office Collections 1817). The weapons cargos Mexico 

acquired from Britain likely contained outdated models that were more affordable to the 

economically-pressed Mexican government (Pegler 2001). India Pattern arms may have been 

one of the principal arms types in Latin America in the early nineteenth century. 

New Orleans gun merchants likely traded a variety of arms types, including the Spanish 

military arms used within the region. A surplus of muskets and other weapons may have become 

available following the U.S. victory at the Battle of New Orleans in January of 1815. Weapons 

used in the conflict included the British East India Pattern muskets, the British Baker rifle, the 

U.S. Model 1795 Springfield musket, older model British Brown Bess muskets, 

Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles, Harpers Ferry pistols, British Dragoon pistols, old Spanish 

shotguns, fowling guns, and assorted other arms (Meuse 1965:16–22, De Grummond 1983:120). 

Personal arms might also have included British, French, American, and German military muskets 

carried into the region by settlers following the American Revolution. 

The wreck of a small vessel off the Texas coast, though later than the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck, may be indicative of the large variety of arms, both military and civilian class, 

available on the open market at New Orleans in the early part of the nineteenth century. The 

vessel is believed to be the U.S. schooner Hannah Elizabeth, which sank in 1835 while en route

from New Orleans to Matagorda Bay, Texas. She was laden with arms for Texas revolutionary 

troops (Borgens 2004). The cargo consisted of sabres, bayonets, lead, and cannon shot, in 

addition to British and Spanish military muskets, some of which predated the voyage by as much 

as 75 years (Borgens 2004). The vessel carried a variety of longarms representing at least four 

distinctive types: the British Short Land Pattern (ca. 1769–1794), the British East India Pattern 
131 

(ca. 1809–1815), the 1757 model Spanish military musket (ca. 1757–1791), and an English trade 

pistol (ca. 1800). 

As the box of mixed arms from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck still resides on the ocean floor, 

only general features can be discussed. The thickness of the concretion on the weapons makes it 

difficult, if not impossible, to recognize diagnostic features such as the firearm furniture. The 

weapons box contains an assortment of longarms, at least seven pistols, and two edged weapons. 

The variety and types of arms it contains could be diverse, as demonstrated by the regional use of 

weapons of the time. 

Table 5.4 

Firearm Measurements 

Nationality Model Type Date Length 

(in) Reference 

England Baker Rifle 1802 46.0 Harding,1997:170 

England Light Infantry Carbine 1760 57.0 Baily 1997:104. 

England Eliot Light Dragoon Carbine 1760 43.3 Baily 1997:104. 

England Short Land Pattern Musket 1769 58.0 Neumann 2001:52. 

England Windus (India) 

Pattern Musket 1771–1818 55.0 Harding 1997:50 

France Charleville Musket 1763 59.5 Fuller 1930:37 

France M 1763 infantry 

musket 1766 60.5 Ahearn 2005:189 

France M 1773 infantry 

musket 1773 60.5 Boudriout 1997:121 

France M1781 Carbine 1781 53.0 Boudriout 1997:157 

Germany commercial Musket circa 1742 56.8 Ahearn 2005:214 

Prussia M 1780/1787 infantry 

musket 1780s 57.7 Schmidt 2003:50 

Prussia M 1787 rifled 

sharpshooter 1787 47.6 Schmidt 2003:50 

Prussia 1809 Musket 1809 56.5 Schmidt 2003:50 

Spain 1752 (1757) Fusile 1757 59.3 Brinkerhoff and 

Chamberlain 1972:28-30 

Spain Model 1792 Musket 1792 60.3 Rubí 1990:161–162. 

Spain Model 1802 Carbine 1802 46.5 Rubí 1990:162–163. 

United 

States Fowler circa 1740 60.8 Ahearn 2005:108 

United 

States George Shroyer Rifle circa 1775 58.3 Shumway 1980:408 

United 

States Springfield Model Musket 1795 60.0 Fuller 1930:37 

The approximate size of the weapons crate, extrapolated from scaled underwater 

photography, is 5 X 1.6 ft (150 X 50 cm). This container could accommodate longarms less than 

about 60 inches in length. A majority of the longarms produced in the later part of the eighteenth 

and early nineteenth century could feasibly have been carried in a box of this size. A sample of 

arms measurements is included in Table 5.4. Firearms were manufactured in a variety of sizes, 

though there are some generalities regarding the lengths. Muskets manufactured during this 

period could range in length from 55 to 60.5 inches (139.7 to 153.7 cm). Carbines, a portable 
132 

Figure 5.49. Weapons box.: (a) photo-mosaic image; (b) graphic illustration created from multiple video 

captures (illustration by A. Borgens). 
133 

firearm produced for cavalry, were usually a much smaller longarm, measuring between 43 and 

53 inches (109 to 135 cm), though larger examples did occur. Rifles were typically smaller 

weapons, sometimes corresponding in size to the carbine. American non-military rifles were 

usually longer weapons, with variable lengths. 

Figures 5.49 and 5.50 illustrate the orientation of the weapons within the box, 

demonstrating the various lengths of guns that were packed. Some of these weapons extended 

the length of the box, although at least one example is much shorter (<47 in [120 cm]), indicating 

a carbine or rifle. The longarms appear to have been packed end-to-end (Figure 5.49). The 

assorted arms in the top of the box appear disorganized, possibly due to the nature of its original 

deposition. A collection of pistols is at the south end and the edged weapons are perhaps 

intermixed within the box or packed to the east side. 

The box does not rest horizontally on the ceiling planking, but abutted it at an angle 

(Figure 5.50). The juncture between the box and the ship itself is heavily concreted, though it 

appears to have become lodged into the ceiling planking and rests against a longitudinal support 

timber. This area of the wreck is heavily damaged, with much of the ceiling broken, 

compressed, or collapsed. The west side of the container is concreted to a bulkhead, separating 

this artifact from a large encrustation containing munitions such as iron shot. A large variety of 

artifacts were on the east side of the box, including ceramics, bottles, and buttons. 

An indication of the number of arms contained within the box can be deduced from 

reviewing bills of lading for arms cargos. For instance, bills for muskets purchased from New 

Orleans in the 1830s demonstrated that approximately 20 guns were packed within a crate. An 

assorted cargo of arms transported on the vessel Tamaulipas in 1836 were packed by weapon 

type, including 22 cases of U.S. muskets (20 per crate), 3 cases of carbines (33 per case), one 

case of 50 pistols and one case of 75 sabres (Hall 1836a). In 1836, Edward Hall shipped two 

more cases of arms for the Texas cause, this time purchasing 48 English Tower muskets (24 per 

case) (Hall 1836b). A contract for weapons purchased for the Texas Republic in 1840 included 

860 muskets (43 cases), 640 Tyron muskets (32 cases) and 250 Jenk’s rifles (13 cases); all of 

these longarms were packed 20 per case (Hockley 1841). 

At least 17 longarms are visible in the photographic images of the weapons box produced 

during the investigation of the site. Figure 5.50c demonstrates that 6 or 7 arms are stacked atop 

one another. The size of the box suggests that at least 18 to 21 firearms of various sizes may 

have been stored within the crate, in addition to at least two edged weapons and seven pistols. 

Cargos of arms in the region could vary anywhere from 10 to 84 cases (Davis 2005:309; Faye 

1939:1091). Although this is a small quantity of arms, possibly indicative of a shipboard supply, 

a cargo of only two boxes is historically documented (De Grummond 1961:111; Rose 1961:154). 

It is unknown if multiple cases of arms were originally on this vessel. 

One loose buttplate, artifact no. 229 (Figure 5.51), was located directly under the 

weapons box and recovered from the shipwreck. The cupreous butt plate measures 2.19 inches 

(5.56 cm) across the butt with a tang length of 5.75 inches (14.64 cm). The length of the butt 

from the heel to the toe is 4.37 inches (11.10 cm). This artifact is Germanic-Dutch in origin and 

dated to approximately the last half of the eighteenth century. The buttplate is similar in type to 

those frequently used on Germanic mercenary arms during the American Revolution. The 

flattened central facet of the tang indicates the butt plate was manufactured in Potsdam, Germany 

(Lea 2007). Frederick the Great heavily relied upon the Potsdam arsenal to supply the troops 
134 

Figure 5.50. Orientation of weapons box: sketched from video (a), depicting lower corner (b), and as 

recorded in video (c) (illustration by A. Borgens). 
135 

Figure 5.51. Butt plate (artifact no. 229) (illustration by A. Borgens). 

furnished to England for fighting in America (Neumann 1967:36). Bill Ahearn (2005:217) 

contends that Prussian troops were not sent to America; though these weapons may have been 

supplied to the Brunswick Grenadiers. Mercenaries provided from other locations such as 

Brunswick and Hesse-Kassel did not have their own manufacturing facilities and therefore 

carried a mixture of Dutch and Prussian patterns (Neumann 1967:36). 

The buttplate is engraved with the letter “N”. Dutch buttplates were sometimes marked 

with letters engraved into the face, the meaning of which is unknown. The “N” mark on artifact 

number 229 is nearly identical to that of an eighteenth-century Dutch musket in the Colonial 

Williamsburg Collection and illustrated in Ahearn (2005:Figure 442). An examination of 

Germanic pedigree muskets used in the American Revolution has demonstrated that these arms 

are very similar to the 1740 Prussian Infantry musket. The locks for the Prussian Infantry 

muskets were produced by the Potsdam arsenal while the barrels and furniture were made by the 

Spandua manufactory in Berlin, where the arms were assembled (Ahearn 2005:217–219). An 

example of a buttplate similar to artifact no. 229 is found on a German rifled flintlock carbine 

(ca. 1770), and a Dutch military longarm (ca. 1760) (Figure 5.52). 
136 

Figure 5.52. Decorative tangs. (a) artifact 229; (b) 1740 Prussian Infantry musket; (c) ca. 1760 Dutch 

military longarm (scale approximated). (illustration by A. Borgens after Ahearn 2005: Figures 440 and 478). 

A second loose buttplate lies atop the other firearms near the pistol assemblage (Figure 

5.53). This furniture item is clearly of a different pattern longarm due to the noticeably shorter 

tang and the method of attachment. Artifact no. 229 was affixed to the stock through a series of 

screws; two on the tang and two on the butt of the plate. The loose example used a lug 

attachment on the tang that was pinned through the stock. The shorter tang is reminiscent of the 

simpler style furniture used on British, U.S., and French arms. 

Figure 5.53. Buttplate on weapons box. 
137 

Figure 5.54. Pistol arrangement (illustration by A. Borgens). 

At least seven pistols are stowed at the south side of the weapons box (Figure 5.54). The 

orientation suggested they would have originally been packed one atop the other in the space 

remaining between the side of the box and the longarms. There are four pistols that are exposed 

(A, B, D, and E) with some visibility regarding basic features. Two are broken (likely wormeaten) at the position of the distal edge of the lock plate (A and E). Both these weapons appeared 

to have cupreous trigger guards and one ramrod pipe (neither appeared to have a tail pipe). The 

cupreous trigger guard on pistols A and E do not have a lug attachment at the rear tang, 

indicating they are affixed with a screw. Pistols B and D are complete examples of the pistol 

artifacts, though the diagnostic characteristics are indiscernible. Pistols constructed for naval use 

were equipped with belt hooks and wooden ramrods; though the latter feature can also indicate 

an early manufacture date. The thickness, lack of concretion, and preservation of the ramrods on 

pistol artifacts A and E suggest that they are of wood. 

Two edged weapons are associated with the weapons case. An almost complete example 

of a sword or sabre, concreted within its scabbard, is situated atop the box. The grip had a 

uniform surface with the appearance of wood or bone. Underwater photography indicated the 

pommel is spherical but also damaged or incomplete. The preservation of the stirrup hilt 

suggests that it is cupreous. The stirrup hilt, so-called due to its similarity to the hardware on a 

saddle, became increasingly popular during the last quarter of the eighteenth century (Neumann 

1991:111). The design originated in Europe and was adopted by U.S. manufacturers (Neumann 

1991:123). Its location indicates it was either lying atop the box or shifted to that position as part 

of the site formation process. A small concretion on the upper left side of the scabbard may also 

indicate an attachment ring used for suspending the sword. One additional edged weapon is 

partially visible near the northeast corner of the weapons box. The lightly-concreted artifact 

appears to have a wire-braided grip and pommel. This feature suggests that the two edged 

weapons are of different types (Figure 5.55). 

Figure 5.56 illustrates several variations of stirrup hilts from edged weapons 

manufactured during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Though these examples are not 

representative of the whole variety of hilts produced at the time, the Mardi Gras artifact seems to 
138 

bear a strong resemblance to some of the hilt features of the American sabre (ca. 1775 to 1790, 

Figure 5.56a) and the American hanger (ca. 1790, Figure 5.56d). 

Figure 5.55. Edged weapon artifacts. (a) stirrup hilt in situ (b) pommel and grip (c) stirrup hilt 

reconstruction (illustration by A. Borgens). 

Figure 5.56. Stirrup hilts. (a) American saber or short sword [ca.1775]; (b) American short saber [ca. 1775–

1783]; (c) English short saber [ca. 1775–1790]; (d) American hanger [ca.1790]; (e) French Hussar saber [ca 

1765–1785]; (f) Dutch short saber [circa 1774]. Illustration by A. Borgens after Bazelon 1987:107, Moore 

1967: 144, and Neumann 1991:113 117, 125, 162. 

5.2.6.4 Lead Shot 

The use of lead balls as projectile shot for gunpowder weapons dates to the fourteenth 

century when they were fired from a hand-held arm called a harquebut (Deane 1858:32–33). 

The higher-quality performance of the lead ball compared to other mediums such as copper, 

bronze, pewter, and gemstones was accepted by 1350 (Brown 1980:12). Its appearance in the 

Americas likely dates to the Age of Exploration, which has been substantiated by the recent 

discovery of an Incan gun-shot victim in Peru that dates to the 1500s (Schmid 2007). Due to the 

prolific use of these projectiles in military engagements, these artifacts are the most common 

relic recovered from most nineteenth-century battlefield sites (Brown et al 1986:64). 
139 

Lead shot could be either factory-manufactured or hand-cast in the field from lead stock 

called pig lead. Mid eighteenth-century shot was produced by pouring melted lead through 

strainers and letting it drop 150 feet into a tub of cold water. The motion of the melted lead 

through the air created the cylinder shape. The lead was cooled by the water and then placed 

into polishing machines (Deane 1858:35). Shot was hand-cast by pouring melted lead into 

hinged hand-held molds. The molds produced superfluous lead attachments, called sprues, 

which were clipped off; the remaining burr could be polished in a rolling mill (Harding 1999:7). 

Hand-held casts produced marked seams and also sometimes resulted in offset lead shot. Lead 

shots without seams can be indicative of factory-produced shot. 

The shot from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck have evidence of being hand-cast, though some 

do not have discernible evidence of the casting process. The shot have pronounced mold seams, 

small incised cast lines, and/or casting sprues. In the absence of noticeable casting features, a 

large portion of the shot have a thickness around the circumference, indicating the mold seam. 

Only in a few examples do the shot have crudely-cut sprues. A majority of these are flattened or 

are barely-discernible raised ‘knots’ on the surface. Archaeological examples of unfired musket 

shot without sprues or seams have been excavated from British military sites in the United 

States. The rough maritime and overland transportation of the lead balls, packed tightly in crates 

and barrels, would likely have caused the shot to bang together repeatedly. Over time, this 

would eliminate evidence of the casting (Sivilich 2005:7) 

Almost 1200 lead shot have so far been recovered from the wreck site with large numbers 

still contained within a concretion, artifact no. 135, which is undergoing conservation. Artifact 

135 is a large encrustation from Area 1 that is comprised of multiple objects (see Figure 5.46 and 

discussion below). A small portion of the artifacts were removed from artifact number 135 and 

its surrounding matrix (artifact lot 140) during its movement into a pre-conservation storage 

container at the Conservation Research Laboratory, including 1012 lead shot. A 10 percent 

sample of the shot from artifact 140-10, 100 lead balls, was recorded. The shot sample from 

artifact lot no. 140 was not random, but was selective so that all the larger and smaller shot 

would be documented. The other artifact lots (125.1, 126.2, 134.9, 135-1, 223.7, and 225.10) 

contained a total of 161 shot. All of these shot were recorded. 

Figure 5.57. Lead shot from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, No. 140-10. Calibers (l to r): 0.35, 0.43, 0.56, 0.63, 

and 0.68 (photograph by A. Borgens). 
140 

Figure 5.58. Mardi Gras Shipwreck shot calibers. 

Collectively, the calibers for 271 shot were calculated. The range of calibers varies 

between 0.33 and 0.69. The variability of shot sizes can be seen in Figure 5.57. Many shot are 

very asymmetrical and likely would have been unusable. Such was also the case with shot 

having pronounced mold seams and casting sprues; these were sometimes intentionally discarded 

by musketeers and therefore remained unfired (Sivilich 2005:7). All shot calibers were recorded, 

but for simplification, only lead shot that are roughly symmetrical with individual calibers of less 

than a 0.03 variance were used to create the tabulation of quantities in Figure 5.58. Of the 271 

lead shot measured for this study, 249 shot calibers have a variance of less than 0.03 caliber. 

Two hundred and four lead shot, 75 percent, have a caliber of 0.60–0.66. The difference 

between the caliber of the gun and the size of the ball, windage, was typically 0.05 to 0.10 cm 

(Neumann 1967:52). The 0.60–0.66-caliber would therefore best conform to the size of shot 

used in .69-bore muskets. This caliber was commonly used for French, U.S., and select Spanish 

military muskets of the period (Table 5.5). The optimum size shot for the 0.69-musket bore of 

these longarms was 0.63-caliber; 129 shot are collectively of 0.63 and 0.64 caliber. Shot with 

calibers between 0.63 and 0.68 caliber, however, would be equally usable in Prussian/Hessian 

muskets from the Revolutionary War period. Regulation Spanish miquelet-lock muskets had a 

bore of 0.66, requiring lead shot in the range of 0.61-caliber. Many of the English longarms 

common throughout the Gulf region, in particularly the Short Land and India Pattern muskets, 

had a caliber of 0.75 and used shot of 0.67–0.70-caliber. The musket ball manufactured for these 

muskets by the British Board of Ordnance was 0.68-inch in diameter (14.5 balls per pound) 

(Harding 1999:4–5). 

Three artifact lots (125-1, 225-10, and 226-1) contain small diameter bird shot. Artifact 

lots 225.10 and 226.1 contain 458 small lead balls and were located in Area 2 of the site, forward 

of concretion 135. The bird shot have a diameter of between 0.08 and 0.17 inches (0.21 and 0.42 

cm). 
141 

Table 5.5 

Calibers of Weaponry 

Nationality Model Type Date Caliber (in) Reference 

Dutch musket mid-18th century 0.77 Ahearn 2005:206 

Dutch musket circa 1798–1809 0.73 Hoff 1978:169 

Dutch musket circa 1775–170 0.74 Neumann 1967:82 

Dutch musket circa 1775–1780 0.67 Neumann 1967:4 

Dutch military rifle circa 1775–1790 0.66 Neumann 1967:148 

Dutch officer's musket circa 1780 0.67 Hoff 1978:173 

English East India Pattern musket 1795–1815 0.75 Meuse 1965 

English Short Land musket 176?–1795 0.75 

English Baker Rifle 0.62 Meuse 1965 

English Baker musket circa 1800 0.75 Meuse 1965 

English Light Dragoon pistol 1775–1785 0.65 Neumann 1967:210 

English naval pistol 1762 0.61 Neumann 1967:164 

English Light Infantry carbine 1775–1783 0.65 Neumann 1967:120 

English blunderbuss 1750–160 1.25 Neumann 1967:128 

French Charleville musket 1756 0.69 

French M 1763 Infantry musket 1763 0.69 Boudriot 1997:72 

French M 1773 Infantry musket 1773 0.69 Boudriot 1997:121 

French M1781 carbine 1781 0.69 Boudriot 1997:157 

French M1768 artillery carbine 1768 0.72 Neumann 1967:78 

German Jaeger rifle 1740–1760 0.60 Neumann 1967:136 

German fusil musket circa 1765–1780 0.73 Neumann 1967:84 

German-Dutch cavalry pistol 1760–1775 0.69 Neumann 1967:194 

German-Dutch carbine circa 1740–1780 0.76 Neumann 1967:86 

Prussian M 1780/1787 Infantry musket circa 1780s 0.73 Schmidt 2003:50 

Prussian M 1787 Fusilier musket 1787 0.73 Schmidt 2003:50 

Prussian 1809 musket 1809 0.70 Schmidt 2003:50 

Prussian 1740 infantry musket 1740 0.75 Ahearn 2005:218 

Spain 1752 (1757) fusil 1757 0.69 Brown 1980: 175 

Spain 1752 (1757) carbine 1757 0.65 Brown 1980: 175 

Spain Infantry musket-miquelet circa 1740–1760 0.72 Neumann 1967 

United States Springfield 1795 musket 1795 0.69 Meuse 1965 

United States Pennsylvania rifle circa 1770–1780 0.52 Neumann 1967:140 

United States Kentucky 

/Pennsylvania rifle 0.36-0.40 Meuse 1965 

United States Harpers Ferry pistol 1806 0.54 Meuse 1965 

United States Kentucky pistol circa 1800 0.52 Pegler 2001:122 

United States Kentucky/ 

Pennsylvania rifle 1750–1760 0.54 Brown 1980: 265 

United States Northwest trade gun fusil 1789 0.66 Brown 1980: 285 

United States Committee of Safety musket 1775 0.75 Brown 1980: 309 

United States musket circa 1755–1770 0.72 Neumann 1967:98 

A small proportion of shot have small-diameter holes that are not associated with the cast 

sprue or mold seam (Figure 5.59). This characteristic is only apparent in examples collected 

from concretion 135. Twenty-three shot are of this condition, comprising two percent of the 
142 

1012 lead balls so far collected from the artifact. Some of the holes have centrifugal patterns that 

are similar to those produced by ramrod worms used to remove lead balls lodged within a barrel 

(Figure 5.59 a and b). Shot was generally removed in this manner when the gun misfired and 

there was no other means to extract the ball. The presence of these shot implies that an attempt 

was made to fire them. This, in itself, may present evidence for the occurrence of violence 

during the lifetime of the vessel. One additional shot has a small linear pattern on one face 

(Figure 5.59c). This characteristic could be a tool mark and is similar to the forceps marks on 

lead balls removed from an injured combatant. Similar artifacts have been recovered from 

American Revolution battle sites (Sivlilich 2005:15). 

Three pieces of lead from the concretion artifact, are flat and folded and appear to 

examples of lead shot that were modified to hold a gunflint. The two artifacts pictured in Figure 

5.60 measures 1.02 X 0.97 inches (2.58 X 2.46 cm) and 1.09 X 0.78 inches (2.78 X 1.99 cm); the 

third example is damaged and is not illustrated. These both correspond well with the gunflints 

from the site, whose average width is 1.06 inches (2.69 cm). 

All the lead shot excavated from the site were congregated in Areas 1 and 2, either fore, 

aft, or within the large encrustation (no. 135) and on the south side of the weapons box. The lead 

balls recovered in Area 2 (no. 223-7), on the south side of the weapons crate, were stored in a 

box. The container is no longer extant, though its rectangular shape is indicated by the pattern of 

shot in the sediment. Fragments of the box were recovered during the collection of the lead balls 

(Figure 5.61). The various circular impressions in the wood suggested multiple calibers may 

have been contained within the same case. 

The variety of longarms used in the region of the Gulf undermines the ability to use the 

range of calibers as a diagnostic tool as has been done with battle sites from the American 

Revolution (Sivlilich 2005; Sivlilich 1996). There is, however, a very low quantity of lead shot 

(.67–.69-caliber; 20 total shot) that would be useable in English muskets. 

Figure 5.59. Modified shot, magnified to show marks (photograph by A. Borgens). 
143 

Figure 5.60. Modified lead (artifact no. 135-1). Image at right is an enlarged view of the larger flattened lead 

(photograph by A. Borgens). 

Figure 5.61. Shot impressions in wood (artifact no. 223-8)(photograph by A. Borgens). 

5.2.6.5 Gunflints 

A small collection of gunflints were collected from the wreck site (a sample of these is 

illustrated in Figure 5.62). These flints were essential for the use of flintlock arms and are a 

relatively common find at many historic archaeological sites (Kenmotsu 1990:92). Gunflints 

used in the Americas were predominantly of French and English origins and, as such, were 
144 

transported by sea. These could be shipped in large and small quantities alike; shipments could 

contain a cargo of as many as 36,000 gunflints (Davis 2005:309). 

Figure 5.62. Gunflints (artifact no. 134-3) (photograph by A. Borgens). 

The identification of gunflints is assisted by the examination of the color of the flint. 

Gunflints from shipwreck sites, however, usually have heavy ferrous staining caused by the 

degradation of the wreck. Newly-cut gunflints experience a chemical change that causes a 

patination of the surface. This process makes the gunflints absorbent to staining, especially those 

on the seafloor. The external color of a stained gunflint, unless freshly exposed, cannot provide 

provenience information (Lotbiniere 1984:207). 

French yellow-honey or blonde gunflints were the most commonly-used type in England, 

France, and the American colonies prior to 1800. Over 95 percent of the gunflints found in 

military camps, including those of the British, were of French origins (Kenmotsu 1990:96). 

Originally the English quarries produced gunflints by creating somewhat regular shapes out of 

large flakes removed from flint blocks. This created an unshapely gunflint and was the mode of 

production until the introduction of the French method into England, possibly at Kent, around 

1775 (Lotbiniere 1983:v). After the establishment of the Brandon quarries in about 1790, 

English gunflints began to dominate archaeological collections in the United States (Kenmotsu 

1990:96). 

The most sophisticated method of gunflint production, started by France and later utilized 

by England, France, Austria, and, eventually, Spain, was blade production. A flint nodule was 

quartered, which produced a striking platform for splitting blades. Using this technique, a single 

flintknapper could produce 1000 to 1500 gunflints daily (White 1975:65). Historically, an 

average of 20 rounds could be fired using a single flint (Kenmotsu 1990:103) 

Fifty-nine gunflints were recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. Fifty-seven are 

English gunflints and two are of the French type. A majority of the gunflints, 45 in all (including 

the two French examples), are sized for musket locks (using Skertchly's typology). One example 

is a crudely-flaked bifacial gunflint. The average size of the musket gunflint is 1.3 X 1.1 X 0.3 
145 

inches (3.3 X 2.8 X 0.7 cm). One gunflint is similar in size to that for a carbine, measuring 1.2 X 

1.1 X 0.23 inches (3 X 2.8 X 0.6 cm). Only six small gunflints, corresponding to Skertchly’s 

(1879:61) second double/rifle flint, are in the collection. The average size of these small 

gunflints is 0.96 X 0.68 X 0.27 inches (2.4 X 1.7 X 0.7 cm). These are from three artifact lots 

(222-4, 225-4.1, 223.3), all located in Area 2 of the site, just aft of the weapons box. Three 

intermediate-sized gunflints, corresponding to the Skertchly horse pistol type, and five large 

gunflints, the large swan type, comprise the remainder of the gunflint artifacts (Skertchly 

1879:47, 56–58). 

5.2.6.6 Arms and Munitions Summary 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck was carrying a collection of longarms, lead shot, cast iron 

artillery shot, and gunflints and was outfitted with at least one cannon. The artillery shot from 

the wreck is of multiple sizes, including at least those for a 3-pounder, 5-pounder, and 6-pounder 

gun. Only one cannon was located on the wreck site, a 6-pounder cannon manufactured for the 

merchant class. As the cause of the wreck is unknown, it is indeterminable if the vessel was 

partially salvaged prior to the sinking or if a possible catastrophic event, such as a hurricane, may 

have dislodged objects from the wreck, scattering the materials over a large area as they sank to 

the bottom. It is therefore unknown if the vessel carried multiple artillery. The ferrous shot 

could therefore be indicative of supplies for shipboard guns and/or as cargo items. The 

collection of the arms material at the aft end of the vessel could be indicative of a shipboard 

magazine. 

The lead shot, as with the other arms materials, was found in multiple areas of the site 

and in large quantities. There is evidence that part of this artifact collection was originally stored 

in a box, though historically lead shot was also transported in bags and casks. A majority of the 

shot was manufactured for use in smaller caliber muskets, like those produced in the U.S., 

France, and Spain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There is very little shot (less 

than 7 percent) in the entire collection that would have been used in the larger-caliber English 

arms that were ubiquitous in the Gulf in the early part of the nineteenth century. 

The cannon is of British manufacture (Scotland), though the recovered lead shot do not 

support the presence of British muskets on the vessel. The sole example of firearm furniture, a 

single buttplate, is of Germanic/Dutch origins and was likely manufactured decades before the 

voyage. The weapons box appears to contain an assortment of arms of different nationalities, 

types, and manufacture date. Longarms transported for official military use were often packaged 

by type, indicating the weapons box was filled with personal, likely civilian, shipboard arms or 

part of a privately-acquired arms shipment. New Orleans, the nearest port in proximity to the 

wreck, was a focal point for the sale and distribution of a variety of arms types for private use, 

filibusters, and regional revolutionaries. The arms on the wreck are suggestive of the 

international character of the region. 

The arms assemblage suggests the ship was a non-military civilian vessel or a privatelyoutfitted gunrunner/privateer-type craft. Both of these would have been commonly armed in the 

Gulf of Mexico, as the enormity of the privateering activities in the region would have created a 

necessity for arming and defending a merchant vessel. The cannon, dated 1797, and the quantity 

of English gunflints on the site both suggest an early nineteenth-century date for the wreck. 
146 

5.2.7 Navigational Instruments 

By Ben Ford 

The majority of navigational instruments recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

(Figure 5.63) appear to have been manufactured in London, which is consistent with London’s 

dominant position in the instrument trade. Instrument-making developed in London during the 

second half of the sixteenth century as a result of an influx of immigrants from the Low 

Countries (Clifton 1995). In 1551, there were only three scientific instrument-makers in the 

British Isles, including one in London; a century and a half later, the number had risen to 151 in 

the British Isles, the vast majority of which (123) were operating in London. The number had 

risen to 584 British makers by 1801 (with 297 in London alone), and continued to increase, 

reaching 837 British instrument manufacturers by 1851 (Clifton 1995:XV). Clearly, London was 

the center of British production, but it was also the center of all European production. London 

benefited from a growing popular interest in mathematical, natural philosophical and 

astronomical interests, financial encouragement from scientific institutions, guidelines set by the 

Royal Observatory that guaranteed quality, and freedom from restrictive work practices 

(Stanbury 1991:197). While English instrument production spread to other communities during 

the eighteenth century, London remained the center, and instruments produced there were used 

throughout Europe and on expeditions funded by foreign powers (Clifton 1995; Stanbury 

1991:197). 

Figure 5.63. Distribution of navigational instruments (illustration by B. Ford). 

5.2.7.1 Sand-Glasses 

Sand-glass is the “generic name for an instrument that measures equal periods of time by 

the motion of a freely-flowing powdered solid substance” (Turner 1984:75). This term is used 

despite the fact that sand was rarely used in sand-glasses. Instead, marble dust, lead dust, tin 

dust, and pulverized eggshell, among other materials, were commonly used, with the occasional 

cleaned and sieved river or ocean sand. Common sand does not fall with the required 

consistency and is, therefore, a poor substance for keeping precise, if not accurate, time (Turner 

1984:84). In the case of the sand-glasses recovered from 16GM01, the falling substance is lead 

dust (see Palynology section below). Regardless of the presence or absence of actual “sand,” 
147 

sand-glasses were present in Europe as early as the mid-fourteenth century. However, prior to 

ca. 1760, they were made by lashing two ampoules together to form the glass. The neck of all of 

these sand-glasses bulge and are wrapped with fabric and cord. After 1760, an effective 

technique for blowing a one-piece sand-glass was developed. After the glass had cooled the 

“sand” was added through an opening in one end. In many cases, such as those from the Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck, the hole was plugged with a cork and covered with parchment or linen. In later 

periods, the hole was plugged with glass and the ampoule was ground smooth (Turner 1984:76). 

Figure 5.64. Sand-glasses (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Clearly the size of the sand-glass has some bearing on the amount of time it recorded, 

but, due to variation in the size of the neck aperture and the “sand” material, the amount of sand 

was the determining variable. During production, sand was either added or removed to achieve 

the desired period (Turner 1984:112). Consequently, a 3-inch tall sand-glass can have a 30-

minute duration while 10.5-inch sand-glass may only measure 2 minutes and 40 seconds (Turner 

1984). Several varieties of sand-glasses were often carried aboard ships. Sand-glasses 

measuring a 4-hour watch, a two hour half- or dog-watch, and the half-hour tricks of a watch 

were all necessary. Additionally, half-minute, 1-minute, and 4-minute sand-glasses were also 

needed for taking the log-ship measurement at different speeds (Lavery 1987:29; Murray 

1980:136; Taylor and Richey 1962:34–35). 

Five sand-glasses (artifact nos. 117, 119, 120, 123, and 208) were recovered from the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck (Figure 5.64), while a sixth sand-glass (artifact no. 105) was lost in a 

seafloor crevasse. These sand-glasses were situated throughout the wreck aft (east) of the 

weapons box and do not appear to be arranged in any meaningful pattern. The measurements of 

the recovered sand-glasses are summarized in Table 5.6. The glasses range in height from 5.6–

3.7 inches (14.1–9.4 cm) with ampoules ranging from 2.5–1.4 inches (4.1–3.5 cm) in maximum 

diameter and necks ranging from 0.5–0.3 inches (1.2–0.8 cm) in diameter. Sand-glass number 
148 

105 was similar in size to the recovered sand-glasses. There is a general correlation between the 

height of the sand-glass and the diameter of the ampoules but the necks vary less than the other 

dimensions suggesting that the maker was attempting to maintain a consistent flow of “sand.” 

The ampoules of each glass also vary slightly in shape and size, which is to be expected in a 

blown sand-glass. 

Table 5.6 

Summary of Mardi Gras Shipwreck Sand-Glasses 

Artifact 

No. 

Height 

(cm) 

Ampoule 1 

Diameter (cm) 

Ampoule 2 

Diameter (cm) 

Neck Diameter 

(cm) 

117 13.66 6.14 6.12 1.05 

119 10.62 3.66 3.51 0.95 

120 14.1 6.23 6.22 1.14 

123 9.66 4.07 4.02 0.84 

208 9.38 4.7 4.61 1.17 

Beyond the change in manufacturing ca. 1760 it is very difficult to date sand-glasses and 

they seldom survive in shipwrecks. Similarly, it is impossible to determine the duration of the 

glass without knowing the precise amount of “sand” that it originally contained. However, a 

similarly shaped French sand-glass dating to the eighteenth century measured 4.6 inches (11.7 

cm) high and had a duration of 28 seconds, suggesting that the Mardi Gras Shipwreck sandglasses were likely used for ship-log measurements rather than timing watches (Turner 

1984:112–113). 

Figure 5.65. Measurement compass (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
149 

5.2.7.2 Measurement Compass 

One measurement compass (artifact no. 225-2) was recovered from the sediment 

southeast of the gun box (Figure 5.65). This cuprous compass measures 2.5 inches (6.5 cm) in 

length with a circular pivot measuring 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in diameter and legs that are 0.2 

inches (0.4 cm) wide. Both legs have a recess to receive the tips, which were likely iron and had 

previously deteriorated (Bruyns and van der Horst 2006). This type of compass is often referred 

to as a true compass, as opposed to the one-handed variety that is typified by an open-circular 

head and scissor action. While compasses often survive on shipwrecks, they are not particularly 

diagnostic. Similar compasses were in use by the beginning of the eighteenth century (Lizé 

1984:125; de Maisonneuve 1992:21; de Mello 1979:219; Morris 1984:257). 

5.2.7.3 Telescope 

While telescopes and enlarging lenses were common in Europe following the 

Renaissance, it was not until the first quarter of the eighteenth century that effective telescopes 

were developed for use at sea. These telescopes benefited from the transition from pasteboard to 

metal and wood tubes and the development of the achromatic lens (Taylor and Richley 1962). 

Much of the flourishing of marine optics was a result of the productive and inquisitive spirit that 

typified London artisans of the period. 

The telescope (artifact no. 206) recovered from approximately 2 ft (0.61 m) southeast of 

the southeast corner of the gun box measures 13.8 inches (35 cm) long and has an outside tube 

diameter of 2.3 inches (5.82 cm) (Figure 5.66). One cuprous fitting on the object-lens tube is 

missing, but the other measures 2.4 inches (6.1 cm) in diameter. The eye piece is 1.4 inches (3.4 

cm) in diameter (Figure 5.67). The object-lens tube is made of wood, while the eye-piece and 

eye-piece tube are brass. The telescope appears to be a two-draw telescope (two tubes) with all 

of the ground glass lenses intact. Two pieces of leather (artifact no. 209) were recovered in 

association with the telescope and may have been used to wrap the instrument. 

Through the efforts of the Conservation Research Laboratory, a maker’s mark was 

identified in an X-ray of the brass eye-piece tube (Figure 5.68). The inscription, in block letters, 

reads 

...A...IS & SON LONDON 

...................IGHT 

The most likely interpretation of this mark is “T Harris & Son London / Day and Night,” 

indicating the maker and type of telescope. Thomas Harris began producing telescopes, 

microscopes, globes, and mathematical instruments in 1790 and was joined by his son William in 

1802, at which time the firm became known as Harris and Son. Thomas left the business in 

1806, but William continued to produce instruments under the same name until his death in 

1843. During this time, the firm operated at 20 Duke Street and 30 Hyde Street, both in 

Blomsbury, London, and was twice given royal appointments in 1819 and 1820. William was 

also Master of the Spectacle Makers Company of London between 1824 and 1826. Despite 

suffering at least one financial collapse in 1830, the firm continued on under other owners until 

at least 1901. Thomas had a second son, also named Thomas, who was an optician and worked 

with his father and brother during the early nineteenth century but was killed in the 1808 Covent 

Garden Theatre fire. It is interesting to note that, while both the elder Thomas and William were 
150 

Figure 5.66. Telescope (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.67. Telescope eyepiece (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

members of the Spectacle Makers Guild, the younger Thomas was a member of the Loriners 

Guild (bit, spur, and bridle makers) (Clifton 1995:124–126). This apparently incongruous guild 

membership was likely a result of the difficulty of incorporating the relatively new craft of 

instrument-making into the established guild structure of London (Brown 1979). A search for 

American instrument makers that also matched the maker’s mark resulted in no matches (Bedini 

1964). 
151 

Figure 5.68. Detail of X-ray image depicting inscription on eye-piece tube (photograph by G. Schwarz). 

Telescopes are not regularly recovered from shipwreck sites, but a slightly smaller 

telescope (object-lens tube length of 22 cm) was excavated from the 1790 wreck of the Russian 

frigate Nicholas. In addition to being shorter, this telescope has a simpler eye piece, but similar 

wood and brass construction (Ericsson 1975:67). Two T. Harris and Son telescopes are known 

from museum collections, both dating to circa 1810. The telescope from the Museo della 

Specola in Bologna appears to be nearly identical to the 16GM01 but measures 19.8 inches (51 

cm) closed (Museo della Specola 2007). Likewise, the T. Harris and Son telescope in the 

National Maritime Museum collection appears identical to artifact number 206 but is slightly 

larger (overall closed length of 20.6 inches [52.5 cm] and object-lens tube diameter of 2.4 inches 

[6.2 cm]) and the maker’s mark is engraved in script rather than block letters (National Maritime 

Museum 2007). 

5.2.7.4 Octant 

Two octant fragments (artifact nos. 131 and 133) and numerous disarticulated parts 

(artifact no. 134-4) were recovered in the vicinity of the stern concretion. A complete octant 

(artifact no. 03) was removed by the unsupervised 2004 ROV visit. 

The term octant is derived from the Latin octans, meaning eight parts of a circle, and 

refers to the instrument’s arc of 45o

. During the first half of the eighteenth century, there was a 

flurry of activity around the goal of effective celestial measurement, with many of the solutions 

employing the principle of a reflecting quadrant, whereby mirrors reflect the path of light to the 

eye, doubling the angle measured and allowing a smaller instrument to do the work of a quadrant 

(Ifland 1998:16). Isaac Newton developed a reflecting quadrant in 1699, but it was not 

published until 1742; consequently, credit for developing the octant is generally awarded to John 

Hadley, a London mathematician, and Thomas Godfrey, a Philadelphia glazier, both circa 1730. 

Both men seem to have developed their designs independently; however, Hadley’s design was 
152 

read to the Royal Society in 1731, widely publicized by the Society, and widely distributed by 

London instrument-makers. Consequently, Hadley’s design dominated the octant market (Ifland 

1998:15). The usefulness of octants for defining positions at sea and their ease of use on rolling 

ships led to their quick adoption by all navigators, and by the late eighteenth century the ability 

to use an octant to determine longitude was established among even petty officers (Stanbury 

1991:197). However, the preeminence of octants was short-lived. Beginning with the 1767 

edition of the Nautical Almanac, lunar distance tables became widely available, allowing for 

calculations based on the positions of sun and moon. Many of these measurements exceeded the 

90o

 maximum of the octant, leading to the development of the sextant by Vice Admiral John 

Campbell and instrument maker John Bird. Sextants, based on a 60o

 arc, could measure up to 

120o providing for all but the most extreme distances (Ifland 1998:27–28). While sextants were 

more accurate than octants, they were also more expensive. Consequently, many navigators 

carried only an octant or both an octant and a sextant late into the nineteenth century. If both 

instruments were carried, the sextant was often used only for lunar measurements, while the 

octant was employed for more routine daily meridian altitudes (Ifland 1998:28; May and Holder 

1973:147). 

The only functionally-significant difference between octants and sextants is the sweep of 

their arc, making it difficult to conclusively distinguish the two from fragmentary remains (such 

as were recovered from 16GM01). Sextants, however, tended to be made of metal, which made 

them less prone to distortion, increasing their accuracy, but also their cost. Octants, meanwhile, 

were often, though not exclusively, constructed out of wood. Similarly, sextants almost 

universally employed a sighting telescope, or at least a sighting tube, rather than pinnula (Ifland 

1998; May and Holder 1973:147; Murray 1980; Taylor and Richey 1962:57). The use of wood 

and the absence of a sighting telescope suggested that the materials recovered from the Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck are parts of an octant. 

Due to the fragmentary nature of the 16GM01 octant remains, a brief description of the 

principal parts of an octant is appropriate (Figure 5.69). Line of sight was established through a 

sighting telescope or pinnula, with pinnula more common on cheaper instruments. Reflections 

of the celestial body being measured were then lined up using the index mirror situated on the 

index arm and the horizon mirror that was affixed to the octant body. Between the horizon and 

index mirrors, there were often several hinged shades of colored glass. These shades allowed the 

amount of light reaching the eye to be adjusted, permitting the same octant to be employed in 

sighting both the sun and faint stars. Shades of this type are often attributed to Peter Dollond, 

with an introduction date of 1772; however, similar shades were recovered from the 1761 

shipwreck St. Auguste (Ascroft and Rochette 1992:29; Ifland 1998:77). Occasionally, separate 

shades for the horizon mirror were attached for sighting low sun positions with a bright horizon. 

It was also common for octants to have a second horizon mirror attached to the frame farther 

from the pivot that would allow for back-sights. Besides the index arm, the only necessary 

moving parts were a set-screw on the index arm that allowed it to be locked to the scale and an 

adjusting screw for the horizon mirror. This screw, later known as the tangent screw, allowed 

the instrument to be zeroed. It also allowed the operator to check for side error by swinging the 

reflected image past the true object to verify that the two were aligned (May and Holder 

1973:148; Murray 1980:101). 
153 

Figure 5.69. Parts of an octant (image by B. Ford after Wikipedia 2007). 

The two principal parts of the recovered octant include the index mirror (artifact no. 133) 

and the base of the horizon mirror (artifact no. 131). The horizon mirror assembly consists of 

brass dials, screws, and base attached to a wooden fragment (Figure 5.70). The entire artifact 

measures 3.8 inches (9.7 cm) long, while the mirror assembly measures 3 inches (7.6 cm) long. 

The mirror support measures 1.1 inches (2.8 cm) in diameter. Attached to the mirror support, but 

on the back of the octant arm, are two washers and a thumb screw all joined to a brass base. The 

backing washer for the mirror support measures 0.8 inches (2 cm) in diameter, while the central 

thumb screw measures 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) in diameter, and the third washer measures 0.75 

inches (1.9 cm) in diameter. The thumb screw likely served as the tangent screw, while the third 

washer may have been a fixture for the internal workings of the screw (Murray 1980:100). The 

index mirror assembly (artifact no. 133) consists of the index mirror, shades, and attached 

wooden fragments of the index arm and frame (Figure 5.71). The entire artifact, when laid flat 

with mirror vertical, measures 3.7 inches (9.4 cm) long and 2.6 inches (6.5 cm) high. The mirror 

measures 2.2 X 1.3 inches (5.6 X 3.4 cm) and was formed by pressing a drop of mercury 

between the glass and the backing before crimping the edges of the backing over the glass to 

form the setting. The remains of three hinged shades with colored glass intact are also attached. 

The glass disks measure 1.1 inches (2.7 cm) in diameter and are set into brass squares 1.3 inches 

(3.3 cm) on a side. Likely associated with this artifact are two brass fragments recovered as part 

of the artifact lot 134-4 (Figure 5.72). These fragments include a shade frame without glass and 
154 

a rectangular object with a central slit and a hinged end. The rectangular object may have been 

placed in front of the index mirror as a modified version of a Maskelyne flap, allowing for 

observations of bright celestial bodies (Ifland 1998:72). 

Figure 5.70. Octant horizon mirror assembly (artifact no. 131) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.71. Octant index mirror assembly (artifact no. 133) (bar equals 2 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 
155 

Figure 5.72. Artifact lot 134-4, including likely octant fragments (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Dr. Helen DeWolf of the Conservation Research Laboratory disassembled the index 

mirror assembly and noted the name “B COLE” marked on the underside of the hinged shade 

base (Figure 5.73). Beside the “E” but much smaller and turned 90o counter-clockwise is a “27.” 

Between the index arm and the frame was a paper gasket; both pieces of wood are marked “92.” 

The purpose of these numbers is unclear but they may have been manufacturing numbers 

indicating pieces of the same instrument (Helen DeWolf, personal communication). 

The “B COLE” likely refers to Benjamin Cole of London, either Benjamin the elder 

(1695–1766) or his son, also named Benjamin (died 1813). The elder Cole began manufacturing 

mathematical, philosophical, and optical instruments in 1720 and was joined by his son 

immediately before the death of the father in 1766. The younger Cole operated the firm under 

the name Cole and Son until 1782, when it was sold to Cole’s apprentice John Troughton. Cole 

and Son advertised a full range of instruments and were known to have sold globes, octants, and 

telescopes. Troughton carried a similar line of instruments but also sold dividing engines, the 

machines used to inscribe angles on the scale of an octant. An additional Benjamin Cole was 

apprenticed to the younger Benjamin but does not appear to have been a relative. This Cole 

operated during the 1770s (Clifton 1995:60–61, 282). A search for American instrument makers 

that also matched the maker’s mark resulted in no matches (Bedini 1964). 

Figure 5.73. Inscription on underside of octant shade base (artifact no. 133) (bar equals 2 cm; photography 

by R. Sasaki). 
156 

While the Cole manufacturing dates are earlier than many other artifacts recovered from 

the wreck, they are consistent with the morphology of the octant fragments. Similar 

components, including the index and horizon mirror mounts, were noted on a 1758 octant 

manufactured by Thomas Hammond and a generic illustration of a mid-eighteenth century octant 

(Ifland 1998:46, 87). Similarly, the brass sextant recovered from the 1790 wreck of HMS Sirius

was described as being very similar to mid-century octants and had an index mirror mount and 

tangent screw arrangement nearly identical to that of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck octant (Stanbury 

1991). Other archaeological examples of octants include fragments recovered from the 1761 

wreck of St. Auguste that had a different tangent screw arrangement, and three nearly-intact 

examples excavated from an 1812 shipwreck on the coast of Uruaguay that were similar but 

more complicated with a second mirror for back-sights (Ascroft and Rochette 1992; Nasti 2001). 

5.2.7.5 Navigational Compass 

While not regularly recovered from archaeological sites, compasses were the primary 

means of navigation in Europe by circa 1300 (compasses were present in China by 1100). 

Compasses similar to the ones recovered from 16GM01 were in use by the end of the sixteenth 

century (Murray 1980). However, the compass described in Falconer’s 1780 dictionary most 

closely approximates the remains found at the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site (Figure 5.74). 

Typically, the brass compass bowl, also referred to as a box, was secured with pivots to an outer 

ring or gimbal that was the last vestige of an intermediate box. This ring also had pivots at right 

angles to those of the bowl that were attached to an outer box of wood. This arrangement 

allowed the compass bowl to pivot in all directions (Falconer 1970:87 [1780]). The outer box 

was commonly square so that it fit well in the binnacle and automatically aligned the compass’ 

lubber line when placed into position (Murray 1980:16). Within the bowl were a brass pedestal 

with a lead base that supported the card and needle. The lead base helped steady the bowl in 

addition to supporting the pedestal. The tip of the pedestal was often a sewing needle, but later 

was made of iridium. The pedestal was affixed to the needle with a cap and the needle attached 

to the card so that the two moved in unison (Falconer 1970:87 [1780]). Prior to the mid 

eighteenth century, needle shapes varied widely, but, in 1745, Dr. Gowin Knight developed an 

artificial rectangular bar compass that came to dominate the market through the first quarter of 

the nineteenth century, after which time it was found that more eccentric needle shapes helped 

balance the card and counteract the roll of the ship (Falconer 1970:87 [1780]; May and Holder 

1973:67, 72). The card itself was often printed on paper and then varnished and attached to a 

supporting disk. The disks were occasionally made of cardstock, but mica and talc were more 

popular because they held their shape well and were unaffected by humidity and heat. The card 

could also be reinforced with a brass ring attached to its edge. The entire bowl assembly was 

often covered with a rimmed glass to protect the card and to prevent dirt from entering the bowl 

(Falconer 1970:87 [1780]; Murray 1980:15, 22). A piece of catgut string was also occasionally 

stretched across the compass fore and aft to limit the effects of parallax when viewing the card 

(Falconer 1970:25 [1780]). 

Most ships carried two compasses fit into a binnacle or bittacle (from the French 

habitacle, meaning a small habitation) positioned directly in front of the helm (rudder, whipstaff, 

etc.) along the ship’s centerline. The binnacle consisted of a small cabinet or box with three 

compartments (see Figure 5.74). The outer compartments each held a compass, while the center 

compartment contained a candle or lamp separated from the compasses by panes of glass 

(Falconer 1970:35–36 [1780]; Lavery 1987:26). The binnacle had the benefits of protecting the 
157 

compasses and placing a compass in front of the helmsman regardless of which direction he 

turned, but they also had the negative effect of placing the compasses close enough together that 

they affected each other. This external influence, combined with iron inclusions in the copper 

bowl and needles that tracked the roll of the ship, made accurate navigation very difficult 

(Lavery 1987:26; Murray 1980:31). 

Figure 5.74. Circa 1780 compass and binnacle (source: Falconer 1970:Plates I and II [1780]). 

The remains of two compasses (artifact nos. 127 and 128) laying 1.5 ft (46 cm) apart 

were recovered from approximately 1.5 ft (46 cm) northwest of the stern concretion. Compass 

no. 127 consists of the brass gimbal attached to the reinforced lip of the compass bowl, several 

fragments of the brass compass bowl, and the brass pedestal attached to a fragmented lead base 

(Figure 5.75). The gimbal measures 7.9 inches (20 cm) in diameter, while the compass bowl 

measures 7.2 inches (18.2 cm) in diameter. The largest fragment of the lead pedestal base is 4.1 

inches (10.5 cm) across. The top of the pedestal has a recess to hold a post, often a sewing 

needle, that supported the card (Falconer 1970:87 [1780]). In addition to several unidentifiable 

disarticulated parts, one of the gimbal-to-box pivots was also recovered with the compass. 

Compass no. 128 includes the gimbal with two intact pivots for attaching it to the box 

and holes for the inner pivots, pieces of wood that were likely the remains of the outer box, the 

compass cover with glass fragments still attached, several pieces of glass from the cover, the 

brass pedestal with lead base, a fragmentary mica card disk, and several fragments of the bowl as 

well as the two disarticulated inner gimbal pivots (Figure 5.76). The gimbal measures 8.5 inches 

(21.6 cm) in diameter while the frame of the glass cover is 7.5 inches (19 cm) in diameter. The 

reinforcing ring of the compass bowl is still inside of the glass cover, and the two are integrally 

attached, with the inner pivots passing through the ears of the cover to attach to the bowl. The 

lead pedestal base is 4.2 inches (10.7 cm) in diameter and the pedestal has a recess similar to that 

of artifact no. 127. The mica card disk measures 5.5 inches (14 cm) in diameter with two pairs 
158 

of holes on either side of the 1-inch (2.5-cm) central hole that were likely used in securing the 

needle to the card. 

Figure 5.75. Compass number 127 (photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.76. Compass number 128 (photograph by R. Sasaki). 
159 

An additional lipped brass ring measuring 7.4 inches (18.9 cm) in diameter (artifact no. 

137) was recovered from between and immediately east of the two compasses (Figure 5.77). 

This artifact has no holes to mount pivots and is shaped to hold a pane of glass. Therefore, it is 

likely the cover for compass no. 127, the bowl of which it fits nicely. In addition to being 

different diameters, which was not uncommon (cf. Ericsson 1975:67), the two bowls are 

different shapes based on the convexity of the lead pedestal bases. 

Figure 5.77. Brass compass cover ring (artifact no. 137) (bar equals 1 cm; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

It is very likely that the two compasses were contained in a binnacle based on their 

positions. This interpretation is supported by the presence of a pane of glass (6 X 3.75 X 0.06 

inches [15.1 X 9.55 X 0.15 cm]; see Glass section above) situated between the two compasses. 

This pane is likely part of the central portion of the binnacle. 

The primary means of dating compasses is their maker and the card. The divisions of 

cards and their decoration changed through time, while the shape of compasses remained largely 

fixed for several centuries (Murray 1980). Similarly, very little comparative archaeological 

literature is available. For instance, a few small compass fragments were recovered from the 

1747 wreck Maidstone, while excavation of the Russian pink Evstafi that wrecked in 1780 

yielded only a lead compass bowl weight. Conversely, the Russian frigate Nicholas (wrecked 

1790) included a nearly-complete compass including a lead pedestal base and a securing rim or 

cover for a slightly smaller compass that was not recovered. This compass, however, had very 

different gimbal pivots than the Mardi Gras Shipwreck compass, and the mica card had a 

significantly smaller hole (Ericsson 1975:67). Two compasses were recovered from Santo 

António de Tanna off of Mombasa, Kenya; however, this vessel was a Portugese East Indiaman 

that was lost in 1697 (Richardson 1991). 

5.2.8 Stern Concretion 

The stern concretion (artifact no. 135), situated at the extreme southeastern end of the 

site, was recovered using a LART and transported in the LART to the Conservation Research 
160 

Laboratory where it is currently undergoing detailed recording, excavation, and conservation 

(Figures 5.78 and 5.79). As this process is ongoing, a final inventory and analysis of the 

concretion can not be provided in this report. However, an initial recording (see Figure 5.46) 

Figure 5.78. Stern concretion (artifact no. 135) during conservation. Box in foreground and domed 

concretion in left background. Drilled planks in left foreground and hull remains in right background 

(squares in fiberglass grid supporting concretion measure 1 inch on a side; photograph by R. Sasaki). 

Figure 5.79. Stern concretion (artifact no. 135) during conservation. Box and cannon shot visible above 

frames and planning (squares in fiberglass grid supporting concretion measure 1 inch on a side; photograph 

by R. Sasaki). 
161 

and inspection revealed a wide array of artifacts. These artifacts include a domed concretion that 

appears to be a conglomeration of scrap iron. Adjacent to the domed concretion is a wooden box 

containing a mixed assemblage of items, including an axe or hatchet head, a chisel, a broom 

head, and several other possible tools. A lead sounding weight is situated between the box and 

the domed concretion. East of the box as the stern concretion originally laid, is an assemblage of 

wood planks with holes drilled through their narrow dimension, some of which contain pegs. 

Additionally, the concretion contains lead and iron shot, including bar shot, as well as 

unidentified pieces of iron, wood, leather, bone, and cloth. 

5.3 Hull Remains 

The data recovery plan allowed very few opportunities to inspect the hull of the Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck due to the highly degraded nature of exposed hull and the goal of limited bottom 

disturbance. Only one hull fragment (likely timber along southwest edge of site) was noted 

above the sediment; the remainder of the hull appeared to have been destroyed by boring 

mollusks and natural action. A 2–4 inch (5–10-cm) thick black layer containing a heavy load of 

mollusk tubes and small wood fragments was noted approximately 3 inches (8 cm) below the 

surface. This mulch layer was likely the remnants of much of the hull. Living examples of 

various boring mollusk species (all members of the Teredinidae family, but many outside of the 

Teredo genera) have been recovered from depths exceeding that of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. 

Temperature, salinity, and the presence of wood, rather than pressure, are the controlling factors 

in the distribution of boring mollusks (Turner 1966:52, 56). However, given the depth of the 

wreck, its isolation on the seafloor, and the limited time (96 hours) that free-living larva have to 

begin boring before they degenerate and die, it is likely that the vessel was infested with coldbreeding mollusks before it sank and that the population lasted until all available wood was 

destroyed (Lane 1960; Turner 1966:52). Only portions of the hull that were buried or 

impregnated with iron corrosion products before infestation appear to have survived. This 

observation is consistent with the nearby Mica Shipwreck, where only timbers in direct contact 

with the copper sheathing were preserved (Atauz et al. 2006; Jones 2004). 

Despite the deteriorated state of the wreck and the limited amount of excavation, the hull 

was visible in four locations: a longitudinal timber along the south side of the wreck, frames near 

the cannon, frames and planking southeast of the gun box, and frames and planking recovered 

with the stern concretion. The aggregate of these areas is approximately 60 ft2

 (5.6 m2) or 10 

percent of the total shipwreck area. 

What appeared to be two attached timbers extending 8.7 ft (2.65 m) southeast-northwest 

(fore-and-aft) are situated along the southern margin of the site (see Figure 5.1). The 

arrangement is 1 ft (30.5 cm) at its widest, with the large timber measuring approximately 9 

inches (22.9 cm) across. This area of the site was not investigated and it is unclear if these 

timbers are a single broken piece of wood or two distinct pieces. Similarly, the function of these 

timbers is unclear, and it is uncertain if they are in their original position or are disarticulated. 

Immediately south and east (aft) of the cannon muzzle, two timbers were noted beneath 

the concretion. The two parallel timbers are oriented roughly east-west (athwartship) (Figure 

5.80). These timbers have a sided dimension of approximately 8 inches (20.3 cm) and are 

spaced approximately 6 inches (15.2 cm) apart, suggesting that the timbers are centered every 14 

inches (35.6 cm). It was not possible to measure the moulded dimension of these timbers. An 
162 

Figure 5.80. Sketch of hull remains situated near cannon (illustration by B. Ford). 

Figure 5.81. Sketch of hull remains situated near weapons box. Ceiling planking shaded light grey, frames 

shaded medium grey, and hull planking shaded dark grey (illustration by B. Ford). 
163 

oddly-rectangular depression with a hook near its center was also noted within the concretion 

immediately above these timbers and what appeared to be a curved piece of metal is situated 

slightly farther to the east. Approximately 1.5 ft (45.7 cm) southeast of these timbers, another 

timber was noted sticking vertically out of the concretion. This timber measures approximately 

4.7 X 2.8 inches (12 X 7cm) and may have had a second timber of similar dimensions 

contiguous to the northwest (forward), although only a roughly rectangular hole remained in the 

concretion. The timber appeared to be clamped between a 4-inch (10.2-cm) thick southeastnorthwest (fore-and-aft) oriented timber to the east and a 2.4-inch (6.1-cm) thick timber to the 

west. Given the lack of investigation and recording in this portion of the wreck, it is difficult to 

interpret these timbers. However, one tentative explanation is that the side of the vessel has 

splayed open so that the timbers near the cannon are frames and the upright timber(s) is a deck 

beam possibly accompanied by a shelf clamp and waterway. 

Additional hull was uncovered while excavating around the gun box. The hull structure 

in this area was compressed and difficult to interpret. This situation was further exacerbated by 

the difficulty of interpreting three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional screen lit with 

artificial light that caused the view to shift drastically as the camera and ROV moved. The 

sketch presented in Figure 5.81 is the author’s best interpretation based on the evidence but may 

require revision if better data is collected. In this interpretation, four irregularly-spaced frames 

were noted in this area. While all of the frames are approximately 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided, the 

northern (forward) three frames are approximately 6 inches (15.2 cm) apart, while the frame to 

the south (aft) is approximately 12 inches (15.2 cm) from the nearest timber. Immediately east 

of the weapon box is a 6-inch (15.2-cm) wide and 3-inch (7.6-cm) thick longitudinal plank. This 

plank is bolted to one of the frames with a round-headed iron fastener and appeared thicker than 

the other ceiling planking suggesting that it is a stringer. Three ceiling planks are also present 

immediately to the east of the stringer, all of which measure approximately 6 inches (15.2 cm) 

wide and 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick. Beyond the ceiling planking, two strakes of hull planking were 

visible. The thickness of these planks was not able to be measured, but they are 8 inches (20.3 

cm) wide. The frames and planking in this area appeared to be at a different vertical angle from 

those west of the stringer. While it was difficult to judge angles due to the use of artificial light, 

several observers noted that the hull east of the stringer seemed to be rising, suggesting that the 

stringer may have been at the bilge. This area was significantly altered with a chainsaw in the 

aborted attempt to recover the weapons box. Beneath the weapons box, an additional ceiling 

plank was noted, as were the ghosts of possibly thinner longitudinal timbers that disintegrated 

during dredging. Farther west, beneath the western edge of the weapons box, a substantial 

timber was noted. This timber, oriented southeast-northwest (fore-and-aft), measures 

approximately 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided and 5 inches (12.7 cm) molded with a notch carved into 

its upper surface. This timber may be the keelson but the notch is unexplained. It is unlikely 

that the notch served as a mast step, but it could have been for a deck beam stanchion. 

As noted in the Arms and Munitions section, the weapons box appears to have broken 

through the ceiling planking in this area, leading, in part, to its angle on the seafloor. A 

concretion obscured the interface between the weapons box and the hull, however it appears that 

the corner of the box truncates a frame visible farther to the northeast. The truncated frame 

could be explained by a framing pattern with unattached floors and futtocks similar to that noted 

on Boscawen (1759) and Ticonderoga (1814) (Steffy 1994:173; Kevin Crisman, personal 

communication). During this period, it was not uncommon for vessels to have either 

longitudinal or transverse gaps between floors and futtocks. The lower corner of the weapons 
164 

box may be lodged between the end of a floor (not visible) and the beginning of the futtock 

visible beyond the ceiling planking. 

The final hull portion consists of two frames (artifact no. 135-13) and several planks 

recovered in association with the stern concretion. These timbers were recorded at the 

Conservation Research Laboratory before conservation began (see Figure 5.46). One of the 

timbers measures 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) sided and 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) moulded while the other 

frame, set at an acute angle to the first, measures 6 inches (15.2 cm) sided and 4.5 inches (11.4 

cm) moulded. The two visible frames are not square to each other suggesting that they may be 

cant frames situated at the stern of the vessel. The single ceiling plank measures 1.25 inches (3.2 

cm) thick but is partially covered by the concretion obscuring its width. The attached hull 

planking is 10 inches (25.4 cm) wide and 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) thick. In addition to the hull 

planking, there is sacrificial firring attached to the hull that measures 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) thick. 

This wood, generally pine (Pinus sp.), was attached to the hull to forestall boring mollusks from 

reaching the hull. The firring was periodically torn off and replaced at less cost than re-planking 

the hull. 

When compared to other known merchant vessels of the late eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries (Table 5.7), the frames of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck are light but within the 

range of other similarly-sized vessels. The wreck was not compared to river and coastal vessels, 

such as the Brown’s Ferry vessel or Malcolm boat, or military vessels, such as Deadman’s or the 

Phinney Site, because these vessels were more likely to be lighter- or heavier-built, respectively 

(Amer and Hocker 1995; Bense 1988; Hunter 2004). Both the hull and ceiling planking of the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck are less than the 2 inches (5.1 cm), which was standard for much of the 

period (Vanhorn 2004). The possible keelson is also smaller than any other recorded keelson 

(Vanhorn 2004). This pattern may reflect the slightly smaller-than-average vessels being built in 

the Gulf of Mexico during this period (see Chapter 4) or the trend towards smaller scantlings 

during the late eighteenth century (Chapelle 1935:227), but given our limited knowledge about 

shipbuilding in the Gulf during the early nineteenth century, it is impossible to be conclusive. 

However, the presence of single frames, rather than double frames, does support the earlynineteenth-century date suggested by the artifacts (Chapelle 1935:227). Thus, it is likely that the 

vessel was constructed within a decade of its sinking, conforming to the average life-span of a 

vessel of this period (Bauer 1988). 

5.4 Palynology 

By Dr. Dawn Marshall 

5.4.1 Introduction 

The deposition of pollen grains in an oceanic environment is dependent on many factors. Within 

the context of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), numerous studies and simulation models exist that 

postulate trajectories of particle movement due to Loop Current Rings or Loop Current Eddies 

and the separation of these rings from the Gulf and Caribbean Currents respectively. 
165 
166 

To determine possible origins of pollen grains deposited in the area of the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck not associated with the archaeological site itself, other factors, such water deposition 

from currents, eddies and deltaic deposits, wind, geological and modern contamination, were 

also considered. 

Pollen samples were collected from 11 bottles, 5 sand-glasses, sediment surrounding the 

stern encrustation of archaeological artifacts, an encrustation found inside a bottle, a rope, and 2 

cores. Basic palynological processing procedures were employed and adapted as needed to 

accommodate different depositional contexts. 

Pollen preservation was mixed in most samples. Pollen grains that are not well-preserved 

could indicate contamination from surrounding sediments. Fresh, modern grains are also 

present. These could have been introduced during the sampling procedure, or could demonstrate 

that there is good preservation at the site as a result of a sealed container. If the pollen was wellpreserved but could not be identified, then the pollen was counted and placed in the unknown 

category. However, if the pollen grain could not be identified due to degradation it was counted 

and placed in the indeterminable category. 

The results indicated that most of the pollen grains from the core samples are a mix of 

Holocene- and Pleistocene-age pollen, with the oldest sediments at the bottom of the cores. 

Nevertheless, the pollen found from the core samples indicated that some mixing occurred either 

before, during, or after the cores were collected. Pollen types found in the sand-glasses were not 

present in the other samples and could be an artifact of initial filling of the glasses. 

5.4.2 Depositional Environment 

Although there are many studies that have explored the dynamics of regions that lie 

above and below the depth of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, relatively few have examined grain 

movement in the transitional depth at which the shipwreck was found. Although sporadic, strong 

mid-depth currents have been reported by SAIC, NOAA, and Texas A&M (Nowlin et al. 2001), 

recent simulation studies indicated that movement of particles vertically in this region is most 

affected by ring separation in the upper depths. The understanding of separation process of rings 

from the Loop Current is based on Vukovich et al (1979), Vukovich and Crissman (1986), 

Fratantoni et al. (1998), Welsh and Inoue (2002), and Oye et al. (2005). 

Lateral movement of grains at a depth of 1000 m appeared to be dependent on whether 

the particles were suspended over depths greater than 3000 m or suspended over slopes. 

Nevertheless, over a three-year period of time, more than 70 percent of the particles released at a 

depth of 1,000 meters moved either above 850 m or below 1150 m. Less than 3 percent of the 

particles moved lower than 1000 m (Welsh and Inoue, 2002). In terms of pollen deposition, 

pollen may be suspended for extended periods of time in ocean environments, especially those 

types of pollen that tend to float due to morphology. 

5.4.3 Pollen Dispersal, Deposition and Preservation 

The limiting factors in pollen dispersal and deposition include the size of the pollen grain, 

the number of pollen grains that are produced by a given plant, the shape of the pollen, the 

landscape, the environmental conditions, and the mode of transport. Depending on the 

evolutionary history of the plant, the pollen will either be dispersed by the wind (anemophilous), 

by insects (entomophilous), by animals (zoophilous), by self-pollination (autogamous) or a 
167 

combination of these (Regal 1982; Bryant et al. 1990). Those plants that are pollinated by 

insects or animals evolutionarily have limited the amount of pollen they produce, while windpollinated plants need to produce prodigious amounts of pollen to ensure their survival. Other 

considerations are the amount of pollen each species produces, the percentage of sporopollenin 

(a condensed fatty acid polymer) found in the wall of the pollen grain that allows the pollen 

grains to be preserved (Havinga 1964, 1971, 1984), and the sinking speed of pollen, which refers 

to how heavy the grain is, and, thus, how far the grain will travel on wind currents (Jackson and 

Lyford 1999). The size differs from the weight of the pollen grain. For example, pine pollen can 

be quite large but, because of the structure of the grain it can travel long distances (Figure 5.82). 

Figure 5.82. Pine pollen grain. 

Generally, wind-pollinated plants will produce large amounts of pollen while insectpollinated plants will produce smaller amounts of pollen. For example, red clover (Trifolium 

pratense) will produce approximately 220 pollen grains per anther, and rye (Secale cereale) 

produces approximately 19,000 pollen grains per anther. These are both insect-pollinated. The 

wind-pollinated pine (Pinus) produces approximately 160,000 pollen grains per anther, and 

juniper (Juniperus) produces approximately 400,000 pollen grains per anther (Erdtman 1969). 

Wind-pollinated types such as oak (Quercus), pine (Pinus) and juniper (Juniperus - also referred 

to as a TCT) tend to be over-represented in pollen samples and insect-pollinated types such as 

squash (Curcubita) and grape (Vitis) tend to be under-represented. On the other hand, pollen 

production type is not always indicative of pollen frequency in the sediment record. Juniper 

(Juniperus) is a high pollen producer. Nevertheless, it is not commonly found in archaeological 

deposits in large numbers due to the low amount of sporopollenin found in the pollen wall and its 
168 

spherical shape. Any juniper or TCT pollen found will not stain well and probably will be 

cracked in two and difficult to differentiate from other non-porate grains unless the preservation 

is good. (TCT’s are pollen grains found in one of three plant families 1) Taxodeaceae, 2) 

Cupressaceae, and 3) Taxaceae.) 

Autogamous, or self-pollinated, types may produce even smaller amounts of pollen than 

insect-pollinated types (Faegri and Iversen 1989). In relation to the deposition of pollen, 

according to Tauber (1965), there are three important sources of pollen to consider when 

examining any type of land deposit: pollen from those plants which release pollen in the canopy 

or over the tops of trees in a forest, the trunk space or those plants that release their pollen closer 

to the ground, and pollen that is scoured from the air during precipitation. The deposition of 

pollen will depend on the surrounding vegetation during the time of deposition, the types of 

plants found in the surrounding area that may be present due to long-distance transport and 

deposition of pollen by human means. 

The processes that may affect shipwreck sites in an oceanic, rather than terrestrial 

environment, include alluvial and deltaic deposits, the presence of silts, clays, sands and gravels 

suspended in water currents that scour and deposit materials, including pollen not associated with 

the archaeological site, and currents that may remove original components associated with the 

shipwreck (Gorham and Bryant, 2001). According to Gorham and Bryant (2001), there is a 

‘secondary in situ’ depositional context in underwater sites. These deposits represent primary 

depositional context materials that are present when the ship sinks that are then deposited in 

lumps, between broken timbers, etc., where pollen and other microbotanical remains may 

become trapped. 

5.4.5 Deep Water Sites 

In contrast to shipwreck sites that are accessible by divers, deep-water sites present 

unique challenges, especially when attempting to collect microbotanical samples. Ideally, any 

artifact that is to be sampled for pollen should be moved minimally and either placed in a 

sealable container or the opening of the vessel should be covered prior to removing the artifact to 

the surface. Because of the extreme depth and the changes in pressure and current movement, 

removing the artifact to the surface without disturbing the potential microfossils is problematic. 

Although the practicality of this methodology has not been tested, it may be possible that mesh 

screening that is less than 10 microns could be employed, to allow for changes in pressure and 

the movement of water without loss of potential palynological data. Although the samples 

retrieved from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck were not covered, information from the mostly intact 

sand/hour glasses indicated that some in situ pollen still remained. 

5.4.6 Methodology 

A total of 30 samples were processed for pollen from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. The 

samples were collected by Dr. Helen DeWolf at the CRL. The supernatant from each bottle was 

sampled with a plastic syringe and placed in sealable containers and labeled “initial draw.” The 

sediment and remaining liquid for each sample was collected and placed in sealable containers 

and labeled. All samples were delivered to the Palynological Laboratory at Texas A&M for 

processing and analysis (Table 5.8). 
169 

Because of the context, most of the samples contain silicates or sand particles and are 

high in fine-grained sediments. In an effort to reduce the amount of sand and small particulates, 

samples were subjected to the following procedures: 1) screen and swirl, 2) hydrofluoric acid, 3) 

sonication, 4) centrifugation and decanting, 5) acetolysis, and 6) heavy density liquid, each of 

which is discussed below. Because the “initial draw” samples did not contain the fine particulate 

sediments, only hydrofluoric acid was necessary to reduce the silicates. 

The first step in processing any pollen sample is the addition of marker grains. Marker 

grains are usually a type of pollen or spore not normally found in the relative geographical area 

where the fossil pollen samples originate. For the purposes of these samples, the marker grains 

added were Lycopodium spores. Lycopodium is a spore from a type of fern that is hardy, easy to 

recognize and presently may be purchased in tablet form in which the quantity in known. A 

marker grain is the “addition of exotic pollen in known quantities” to calculate the absolute 

population density of fossil pollen” (Benninghoff 1942). In other words, to estimate the number 

of pollen grains found from a known volume/weight of sample, a known number of exotic pollen 

grains is added to the unknown fossil pollen sample. Because the number of Lycopodium spores 

is known and the volume/weight of the fossil sample is known, it is possible to calculate the 

concentration or the absolute number of pollen grains per gram/milliliter of material. The 

concentration value serves as an indicator of possible differential preservation. 

If there are a large number of degraded pollen grains, it is often a good clue that 

preservation is poor or differential. If there is poor preservation, then the interpretation of pollen 

data becomes problematic. For example, if only the very hardy pollen grains and those that are 

easy to recognize are found, then generally there is a problem with the overall preservation 

(Bryant and Hall 1993). Some researchers have attempted to establish criteria to determine 

whether a sample is reliable (e.g. Sanchez-Goni 1994), but it depends on the research question 

and the area sampled. Concentration values become important in an archaeological context 

when the pollen concentration values for individual pollen types cannot be explained by natural 

means (Dimbleby 1985). Irregular concentrations may be indicative of human activity, animal 

activity or both (Dimbleby 1985). 

Screening and swirling is a method that assists the palynologist in separating heavier 

sediments from pollen. The theory behind swirling is that the pollen is lighter and will remain in 

suspension while the heavier particles will settle (Funkhouser and Evitt 1959; Pohl 1937). The 

samples from the Mardi Gras generally contained high quantities of silicates or sand and were 

processed using this separation method. 

For soil samples that consist of high-colloidal material or fine-grained materials that tend 

to be attracted to one another, sonication may be employed. Sonication is the use of sound 

waves in water to break apart particles that adhere to one another and limit the visibility of 

pollen. It is usually used in conjunction with a non-foaming soap or other deflocculating agent 

and centrifugation to remove colloidal materials or fine-grained materials such as found in clay 

samples, including those from the Mardi Gras. The samples contained fine-grained sediments 

that had a clay-like consistency. As a result, pollen samples which contained those types
170 
171 

of sediments were sonicated with a non-foaming deflocculant for 10 seconds. Upon removal 

from the sonication bath, water was added, and the samples were centrifuged. The samples were 

then washed several times with water, centrifuged, and decanted to remove the fine grained 

colloids. 

The following acetolysis procedure accomplishes two important things: 1) removes 

cellulose and other organic materials inside and surrounding the pollen grain, allowing for 

surface details and ornamentation to be seen clearly during microscopy, and 2) dissolves 

extraneous plant materials from the surrounding matrix, thus permitting pollen grains to be 

concentrated for examination. The acetolysis solution, as described by Ertdtman, is a mixture of 

acetic anhydride and sulfuric acid. The recommended ratio of acetic anhydride to sulfuric acid is 

a 9:1 mixture (Erdtman and Erdtman 1933). Nevertheless, different ratios may be used if the 

samples are high in organics. All of the samples except for samples 18, 20, 22, and 23 were 

heated at 90o

 Celsius as a catalyst, in an 8:1 ratio of acetic anhydride to sulfuric acid for seven 

minutes due to high organic contents. 

A mechanical method that helps to separate pollen from the extraneous matrix materials 

found in samples is heavy density separation. Zinc bromide is one of the heavy liquids that can 

be modified into a range of densities greater than 1.0, which is the specific gravity of water. This 

procedure relies on the various specific gravities of certain materials in relation to water and 

pollen. Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the mass of a body to the mass of an equal 

volume of water at 4 degrees Celsius or other specified temperature (Weast and Astle 1981). 

Water has a specific gravity of 1.0 and pollen has a specific gravity ranging between 1.4–1.6. 

Most pollen researchers will use a liquid that can be adjusted to between 1.6 to 2.5 to 

accommodate pollen and phytolith extraction; nevertheless, most heavy-density liquids work 

similarly; the heavy-density solution is lighter than heavier particles, including metals and silica, 

which settle to the bottom of the test tube during centrifugation. Meanwhile, the lighter particles, 

including spores and pollen, will float (Coil et al 2003). Because of the high organic content and 

smaller silicates found in these samples, the heavy-density liquid zinc bromide was used on the 

Mardi Gras samples. This step of the processing methodology was repeated for all of the 

samples except for samples 18, 20, 22, and 23. 

The samples were then stained with safranin-O, rinsed with ethanol and suspended in a 

glycerin medium and placed in 2 dram vials. Slides were made of all of the pollen samples. 

They were then examined under 40x and 80x magnification, identified, counted and 

photographed. 

Additionally, all of the sand-glass sediments were saved and put aside for further 

analysis. While processing, it was found that the sand-glasses contained what appeared to be 

lead slag or lead tailings. Representative samples were tested first with sulfuric acid to establish 

that they are a metal and then with hydrochloric acid to establish that the metal in question is 

lead. Both times the material dissolved, which is the positive result for lead (Figure 5.83). 

5.4.7 Results 

Samples processed from the ocean cores yielded concentration values over 1000 

grains/milliliter. Preservation in the cores was differential, varying from well-preserved pollen 

grains to poorly-preserved. The types of pollen found indicated that the sediments are Holocene 
172 

Figure 5.83. Lead grains found in sand-glasses. 

to Pleistocene in age. As a result of water pressure, corks were found inside bottles in situ. As 

the bottles were raised to the surface, the pressure pushed the sunken corks into bottle necks; 

sealing some of the bottles. The sand-glasses contained lead, with sample 14 also containing 

red-colored sand, presumably from the corroded metal near the artifact. Every sample contained 

pollen except for the aforementioned initial draw samples, 18, 20, 22, and 23. Most of the 

samples contained concentration values below 1000 grains/ml with evidence for contamination 

from the surrounding sediments (Appendix F). 

5.4.8 Discussion 

The major type of pollen found is from the plant family Pinaceae (pine). Nevertheless, 

other types were found (Table 5.9). 

The samples from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck tended to have differential degradation, 

varying concentration values and potential contamination. The core samples also showed 

differential degradation within the same stratigraphic level. Core A did not reflect a distinct 

stratigraphy, and, as a result, only two samples were taken, one at 7 cm from the top of the core, 

with the second taken at 18 cm from the top (Figure 5.84). Core B exhibited four distinct 

stratigraphic levels. As a result, four samples were taken in the intervals of 1–6 cm (B1), 6–11 

cm (B2), 11.5–15 cm (B3), and one at 18.5 cm (B4). Core sample B1 sediments are brown/green 

in color, B2 sediments are darker brown, B3 and B4 sediments are black, with B4 darker than 

B3. The pollen types that are most distinctive for the core samples are degraded pollen types 

from the Pinaceae family. The types found were Abies, Picea, Pinus and Tsuga cf. mertensiana. 

These findings are consistent with Holocene and Pleistocene ocean core sediments recorded by 

NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in 1986. The initial site record form 

prepared by Jack Irion (2007), reported that during inspection of the Okeanos gas pipeline 

following Hurricane Ivan in October of 2004, damage to the archaeological site was incurred by 

the subcontractor hired for the inspection. The unauthorized visit resulted in destruction and/or 
173 

damage of several artifacts, including undisclosed bottles. It can be assumed that, as a result of 

this disturbance, older Pleistocene sediments became mixed with younger Holocene sediments 

and settled in open bottles and other artifacts. Additionally, this shipwreck site was initially 

identified in 2002 but not reported until 2004; other unauthorized visits may have occurred, 

which could also have contributed to the mixed sediments. 

Table 5.9 

List of Major Pollen Types Identified 

Scientific Name Common Name 

ASTERACEAE LS Aster family 

BETULACEAEAlnus (4 pores) Alder 

CHENOPODIACEAE/Amaranthus Goosefoot family/Amaranthus 

FAGACEAE Quercus Oak 

JUGLANDACEAE Carya Hickory 

MYRICACEAE Myrica Wax Myrtle 

PINACEAE Pinus Pine family 

POACEAE Grass family 

SALICACEAE Salix Willow 

ULMACEAE Ulmus Elm 

Samples 1, 2, 6, 8, 13A, 13B, 16, 17, and 30 did contain pollen types that were probably 

from the original or primary context and can contribute valuable information. Sample one was 

from a glass bottle and contained Vitaceae vitis (grape) pollen. Grapes are insect-pollinated and 

will bloom and fruit simultaneously. As a result, grape pollen will be found in most wine 

sediments. Because of the context of the samples, it can be assumed with some assurance that 

the grape pollen was an artifact of the initial use of the bottle, which did at one time contain 

wine. Nevertheless, vitis was also found in sample 13b, which is a sand-glass. A potential cereal 

grain was also found in this sample. At this time, it is not possible to determine if the pollen was 

introduced when the sand-glass was initially constructed or as a result of secondary deposition. 

In addition to the previous pollen types, Tilia (basswood) was also found. Since Tilia is endemic 

to states surrounding the coast, including Texas, and the grain was relatively fresh and not 

degraded, the assumption is that it is a modern day contaminant. Samples 2, 8, 13a, 13b, and 17 

contained possible cereal grains or grains from the Poaceae or grass family. Poaceae grains 

would be present in bottles that contained beer made from cereals such as barley. Nevertheless, 

although there is a potential for the Poaceae pollen to be in a primary depositional context, pollen 

grains from this family are endemic and size determinations used to identify cereals grains 

overlap with regular grass pollen. 
174 

Figure 5.84. Cores A and B. 

5.5 Wood Analysis 

The five wood samples taken from the Mardi Gras shipwreck were identified by Dr. 

Regis Miller as American black walnut (Juglans nigra), yellow pine, likely of the southern 

yellow pine group (Pinus) (three samples), and a species of the white pine group, likely eastern 

white pine (Pinus strobus). The black walnut sample was removed from the gun carriage, the 

white pine was a sample of the planking, and the yellow pine included samples from two frames 

and the spar. American black walnut is native to the central and eastern U.S. The southern 

yellow pine group includes long leaf pine and southern long leaf pine, and ranges along the 

coastal plain from eastern Texas through north and central Florida to southeast Virginia. Eastern 

white pine occurs in eastern North America between Georgia and Newfoundland and as far west 

as Minnesota. 

The presence of southern yellow pine frames suggest that the vessel was built in the 

southern U.S., possibly along the Gulf Coast. The presence of eastern white pine planking could 

indicate that the vessel was repaired at a northern port. However, these are tenuous connections 

given the large range of both species and the extensive use of southern yellow pine in ship 

construction (Steffy 1994:259). 

Steffy (1994:259) noted that southern yellow pine was often used for frames and spars 

because it is easy to work but also strong and stiff. Yellow pine was specifically noted in the 

interior planking of the Reader’s Point wreck, the keel of the Clydesdale Plantation wreck, and 

the hull planks and keel of the Town Point wreck. Furthermore, unidentified pine was employed 

in sheathing the Rose Hill and Reader’s Point wrecks, as well as Betsy. The keelsons of Betsy 

and the Clydesdale Plantation wreck were also made of unidentified pine. The keel of the 

Brown’s Ferry wreck was also unidentified pine, as was its exterior hull planking (Vanhorn 

2004:Table A-3). 
175 

6.0 Analysis and Conclusions 

By Ben Ford 

6.1 Vessel Analysis 

6.1.1 Dates of Construction and Wrecking 

The artifact assemblage and hull remains of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck indicate that the 

wreck occurred between 1808 and circa 1820. The eight reales coin, dated 1808, provides a firm 

terminus post quem for the wreck, but there is no equally obvious terminus ante quem. 

However, the presence of early nineteenth century French wine bottles and creamware ceramics, 

some of which have shapes distinctive to the first decade of the nineteenth century (see Table 

5.1), suggest that the vessel was last outfitted not long after the coin was minted. William 

Adams (2003:59) suggests that ceramics and glass often had a time lag of 15–25 years between 

when they were produced and the event that placed them in the archaeological record. Many of 

the effects that often caused this lag, however, are not applicable to shipwreck assemblages (e.g. 

rural effect or curation effect). Additionally, the general uniformity of the French wine bottles 

suggests that they are not a mixed assemblage acquired over time either on the vessel or at the 

bottling source. Thus, Adams’ low estimate of 15 years can be used to suggest that the Mardi 

Gras ship last departed dock sometime before circa 1820. 

It is likely that the vessel was built no more than five to ten years earlier than the wreck 

date estimate suggested by the artifacts (1798–1815). American ships from the period 1715 to 

1765 lasted an average of 4.7 years, and only 9.4 percent survived longer than 10 years. British 

vessels lasted only slightly longer (Bauer 1988:32–33). The Mardi Gras Shipwreck is of a 

slightly later period, but the factors that led to ship loss and abandonment in the mid eighteenth 

century, namely few navigation aids, boring mollusks, and unpredictable weather, still held in 

the early nineteenth century Gulf of Mexico. The recorded hull remains support the estimated 

date. While early nineteenth century ship construction in the Gulf of Mexico has not been 

extensively studied, the visible hull remains do conform to Chapelle’s (1935:227) description of 

hull framing during the late eighteenth and very-early nineteenth centuries. During this period, 

there was a transition from paired double frames to single sawn (as opposed to naturally curved) 

frames and a general reduction in frame dimensions. This pattern may have developed earlier 

and been maintained longer in the Gulf of Mexico, where fast vessels for avoiding predators and 

light hulls for decreasing draft in shallow harbors were both considerations for ship constructors. 

One of the archaeological parallels to the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, the Clydesdale Plantation 

Vessel, which was a coastal sloop constructed in the Carolinas sometime between 1780 and 

1820, had similar characteristics despite being a smaller vessel (20–25 tons). The frames of the 

Clydesdale Plantation Vessel consisted of 5-inch moulded floors notched over the keel with 

futtocks attached in-line and free-floors situated between. The presence of single frames and the 

off angle of the weapons box in the Mardi Gras vessel suggest that it may have had an analogous 

pattern with unattached futtocks above the free-floors, possibly supporting a turn-of-thenineteenth-century construction date. However, this analysis is based on a small and scattered 

sample of the hull structure and is only a hypothesis that will require future testing to verify. 
176 

6.1.2 Vessel Orientation and Dimensions 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck is oriented with its bow to the north-northwest. This 

orientation was derived from the linear arrangement and distribution of the artifacts and hull 

remains. The presence of the anchor at one end of the site and possible cant frames within the 

concretion retrieved from the other end suggest that the two extremes of the artifact distribution 

closely approximated the dimensions of the vessel. The presence of the bulkhead and the 

distribution of personal artifacts to its southeast also support this conclusion, as this closely 

parallels the cabin configuration of many late eighteenth and early nineteenth century small 

merchant vessels (see Vessel Layout section below). 

This orientation, the angle of the weapons box, the shapes of the two large concretions, 

and the surviving hull remains suggest that only the starboard side of the vessel was preserved. 

The weapons box was canted approximately 30o off the seafloor. While it appears to have 

broken through the ceiling planking, either during the wrecking process or due to degradation of 

the planking after the wreck settled on the bottom, this is not an angle at which a heavy chest 

would naturally rest, indicating that it may have been partially supported by hull remains before 

it was concreted to the bulkhead. The large concretion attached to the north side of the bulkhead 

also supports this hypothesis. A substantial number of iron artifacts came to rest against the 

bulkhead and another hard surface for a sufficient period of time to form the concretion. The 

hard surface that formed the edge of the concretion leading to the cannon was possibly the side 

of the hull before it deteriorated. Thus, it appears that many of the loose iron objects on the deck 

and/or inside the hull, including a substantial amount of cannon shot, were transported to the 

intersection of the bulkhead and the hull. The stern concretion may have been formed by a 

similar process within the cabin, but its shape is not as indicative of a structural intersection. The 

possible stringer and keelson identified immediately southeast of the weapons box were also 

consistent with the starboard side of the vessel. While vessels often had several stringers, the 

heavier notched timber southwest of the chest has fewer alternative explanations. The notch in 

the top surface of the possible keelson may have supported a stanchion but further excavation is 

necessary to verify this interpretation. If this is in fact the keelson, the stringer was likely 

situated at or near the turn of the bilge, particularly given the observation that the frames began 

to rise beyond that plank. Tentatively, it appears that the vessel came to rest slightly to starboard 

and astern, forcing those portions of the vessel into the sediment and causing mobile artifacts to 

travel to the lowest points. Unfortunately, this position left the remainder of the vessel exposed 

to boring mollusks and other destructive forces. 

The surviving remains suggest that the Mardi Gras vessel was an average-sized schooner 

for its period of operation. The length of the site (48.5 ft [14.8 m]) corresponds well with the 

average length of schooners operating in the Gulf of Mexico (56 ft [17.1 m], see Table 4.2) 

especially because it is unlikely that the stern concretion formed at the aftermost portion of the 

deck. More likely, the concretion formed within the cabin space and the transom extended the 

deck several more feet aft. Similarly, the distances from the likely keelson to the bilge stringer 

(6.5 ft [1.98 m]) and to the side of the hull extrapolated from the edge of the large concretion (9.5 

ft [2.9 m]) indicate a vessel with a beam of approximately 18 ft (5.8 m), which is very close to 

the 17.6 ft (5.36 m) average for Gulf schooners between 1804 and 1820 (see Table 4.2). 

Assuming that this vessel was also average in its other dimensions, it likely had a depth of hold 

approaching 6.7 ft (2.04 m) and a capacity of 56 tons (see Table 4.2). Despite this evidence, 

there was substantial variability among Gulf of Mexico vessels and the dimensions of the Mardi 
177 

Gras vessel, especially the depth of hold and tonnage, are only estimates based on the current 

evidence. Reference to Table 5.7 indicates that the Mardi Gras vessel was more lightly-framed 

than many known wrecks of the period, but it was also a smaller vessel than any on the list 

except the Browns Bay and Clydesdale Plantation vessels (similarities between the scantlings of 

the Mardi Gras vessel and the Browns Bay Vessel are somewhat misleading because the Browns 

Bay Vessel was partially clinker built and derived much of its strength from its planking). Thus, 

the scantlings of the Mardi Gras vessel are within reason for a 40–65-ton vessel. 

There is a reflexive relationship between the likely rig of the vessel and its size. The size 

of the ship suggests that it was a schooner, and the dimensions of the recovered boom (5.9 inch 

[15 cm]) closely match the dimensions for the third-quarter of a boom for the smallest sloops (70 

tons) and schooners (110 tons) listed in 1794 by Steel (1982). It is possible that the Mardi Gras 

vessel was rigged as a sloop, as these vessels were approximately the same size as schooners in 

the early nineteenth century Gulf of Mexico and the boom dimensions work equally well for 

both. However, there were 179 schooners (51 percent) hailing from Gulf ports between 1804 

and 1820, while there were only 23 sloops (7 percent) during the same period. The schooner rig 

divides the sail between two masts so that less crew is required to work the same amount of sail 

used to drive a similarly-sized sloop. North American mariners had largely adopted the schooner 

rig for their vessels by 1790, and, by 1810, it was rare to see sloops engaged in blue water trade 

(Chapelle 1935:221, 298). Assuming that the Mardi Gras vessel was rigged as a schooner, it was 

likely a topsail schooner (rigged with a square sail as the foretopsail and often the main-topsail), 

as this was the most common rig for an offshore schooner in the late eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries (Bauer 1988:32; MacGregor 1980:84; Steel 1982:Plate XLVIII). 

6.1.3 Vessel Layout 

Given the distribution of artifacts across the wreck site and their relationship to the 

surviving hull remains, it is likely that many of the artifacts did not travel a great distance during 

or after the wreck and their recovered locations can be grossly associated with their pre-wreck 

locations. Thus, the original layout of the vessel can be extrapolated from the archaeological 

remains. 

Comparison with other vessels of the same size and period (illustrated in Chapelle 1935; 

Gardiner 1995; MacGregor 1980,1984a, 1988; Marquardt 2003) suggests that the Mardi Gras 

vessel likely had a single cabin located aft and possibly a forecastle deck or cabin situated 

forward of the fore mast. The surviving bulkhead was likely the forward wall of the after cabin. 

The forward portion of the wreck was not excavated and no evidence of the forward deck or 

cabin was noted; consequently, it is impossible to determine if this structure was part of the 

original vessel. The space forward of the bulkhead was likely used for carrying cargo and was 

possibly decked over. The locations of the cannon and stove within this area suggest that the 

vessel had a deck on which these artifacts originally sat. It would have been odd to have a 

cannon on its carriage below deck on a vessel of this size. Little evidence survived to suggest 

the original location of the cannon. The presence of an additional cannon and/or swivel gun was 

indicated by the varying calibers of shot noted in the nearby concretion. This shot could have 

been used as ballast, as was done on Auguste, but shot was more likely to be carried for use or as 

a cargo in the Gulf of Mexico during this period (Ascroft and Rochette 1992). There was also 

evidence that the stove had shifted, as it was no longer centered on the lead sheet that protected 
178 

the deck from heat, but it was situated closer to the center of the wreck than the cannon and may 

have indicated the approximate location of the main mast. 

No direct evidence for the masts survived. However, a summary of similar vessels of the 

period (Table 6.1) indicates that, regardless of size, the position of the main mast remained 

relatively constant at 42 percent of the vessel length as measured from the stern (standard 

deviation of 3 percent). The fore mast similarly tended to be situated at 80 percent of the 

vessel’s length as measured from the stern (standard deviation of 4 percent). As the only 

undisputed structural evidence noted on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, the average position of the 

forward bulkhead of the stern cabin was also noted. This ratio varied more than those for the 

masts and did not fluctuate regularly in respect to vessel size, rig, or construction date. The 

percent of the vessel included in the stern cabin varied from 21 percent to 43 percent, with an 

average of 30 percent and standard deviation of 8 percent. A comparison between the locations 

of the bulkhead and the main mast for the ships listed in Table 6.1 indicates that the main mast 

on a 56-ft (17.1-m) vessel could range from 0.6 ft (18.3 cm) aft of the bulkhead to 13.2 ft (4 m) 

forward. The average distance between the bulkhead and main mast on a 56-ft vessel was 5.9 ft 

(1.8 m). On the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, 5.9 ft forward of the bulkhead was the center of the 

stove. While this is likely a coincidence, it is not inconceivable that the heavy stove remained 

relatively close to its original location. Single-decked merchant vessels often carried their stove 

on deck aft of the fore mast. However, it was not unheard of for the stove to be situated near the 

main mast, such as on Neptunus (113 tons, built 1843) where the stove was in a small galley shed 

erected on the main deck immediately forward of the main mast (MacGregor 1984b:75). 

The remaining hull area, aft of the bulkhead, contained artifacts likely associated with a 

stern cabin. This space generally served as the business office and mess of the vessel, as well as 

the captain’s quarters (crews on small vessels often slept on deck or in the hold). The artifact 

assemblage of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck reflects these uses. The only domestic artifact 

recovered forward of the bulkhead was a stoneware jug (artifact no. 300). All other table and 

teaware, as well as all of the bottles, were recovered aft of the bulkhead. This distribution 

suggests that the ceramics were stored within the cabin and meals may have been eaten there as 

well. The linear arrangement of many of the ceramics (artifact nos. 211–215 and 219) and their 

association in stacks of like wares (artifact nos. 213 and 214-1, 214-2, 214-3, 219-1, and 219-2) 

suggest that at least some of the ceramics were stored in a cabinet. The presence of this cabinet 

is further suggested by the nearby drawer-pull (artifact no. 216). The cabinet likely survived the 

wreck with the ceramics inside but subsequently deteriorated, leaving only its hardware and 

dropping the ceramics in place. Similar furniture with specially-constructed cupboards was 

noted on the Yorktown shipwreck YO88 (Renner 1987). Other pieces of ceramics and the 

flatware were strewn across the aft cabin area, suggesting that not all of the table and teaware 

were secured in a cabinet. 

The shapes of ceramics recovered did not shed any light on the types of foods eaten by 

the crew. Given the predominance of soups and stews in maritime diets and the presence of the 

tureen, large bowl, and spoons, it was odd that no individual-sized bowls were recovered, 

especially, as the days of the communal trencher had generally passed prior to the Revolutionary 

War (Deetz 1996). However, the deep-bodied plates could have been used to eat stews as well 

as the more-solid food suggested by the charger and fork- or knife-handle scales. Whatever was 

eaten would have been spiced or sweetened by powdered mustard from the “London” bottle and 

sugar, salt, or pepper from the caster. 
179 
180 

As discussed in Chapter 5, all of the recovered ceramics were of the least-expensive 

variety available in the early nineteenth century. Whereas some ship masters invested in 

displays of wealth, the operator of the Mardi Gras vessel appears to have been more frugal. It is 

dangerous to read too much into the choice of ceramics; however, they do hint at the utilitarian 

nature of the vessel. Even ceramics that were often used for ostentatious display on land, such as 

teawares, were of the plainest variety. 

The beverages served at the ship’s table are somewhat easier to identify. Based on the 

artifact and pollen data, the French wine bottles likely contained wine, possibly the then-popular 

claret (Jones and Smith 1985:14). The British-beer shaped bottles, with their varying shapes and 

inconclusive pollen data, were more difficult to identify, but likely also contained spirits. Coffee 

was also likely served. The presence of beans in the stern concretion matrix and the mill 

recovered near the weapons box, as well as the cups and saucers that historically were used for 

both tea and coffee, indicate that the crew, or at least the master, also had access to fresh-brewed 

coffee. This preference also helps date the wreck to the second decade of the nineteenth century. 

Coffee did not become prevalent in the U.S. until the War of 1812 made coffee the popular and, 

in many cases, only available form of caffeinated beverage. 

In addition to the evidence of food and drink, the cabin area contained the remains of 

crew clothing. This includes one shoe or boot heel and several buttons likely belonging to six 

different garments, or possibly fewer items with mismatched fasteners. The heel was recovered 

near the stern concretion, while the majority of the buttons were recovered from a 0.8 X 1.5-ft 

(24 X 45.7-cm) area aft of the weapons box. Given the close proximity of this variety of buttons, 

it is likely that the clothes were stored in a chest or similar piece of furniture nearby. The two 

Spanish coins were also recovered from this area, indicating that they may have been stored in 

the same piece of furniture with someone’s clothing and personal possessions. It is unlikely that 

the coins were money in the pocket of a sailor wearing the boot associated with the heel and the 

clothes that were fastened with the buttons given the distance between the heel and the buttons 

and the wide variety of buttons recovered (likely representing six garments). 

The cabin also held tools associated with the maintenance, defense, and navigation of the 

vessel. An implement from the ship carpenter’s kit, a smoothing plane, was recovered near the 

ceramics cabinet. The remainder of the kit has not yet been identified but may be contained in 

the stern concretion, and it is unknown where these tools were stored. Conversely, the weapons 

used to defend the ship are still secured in their box (see Cargo section below for further 

discussion), and the shot and flints likely associated with these guns still retained evidence of the 

box that held them near the stern concretion. 

While it is possible that the contents of the weapons chest were cargo, the navigational 

instruments located within the cabin are almost assuredly associated with the vessel. The 

compass and binnacle, the fragments of which were recovered from near the stern concretion, 

may have been situated on the quarter deck immediately in front of the tiller and only settled into 

the cabin area as the hull began to decompose. However, it is possible that the binnacle was 

stowed in the cabin during inclement weather at the time of sinking. The remaining instruments, 

including sand-glasses, sounding lead, telescope, and octant, were more likely stored in the 

cabin. The presence of various ship-log timing sand-glasses and the absence of watch-clocks, 

which would have been kept near the helm, also suggest that the surviving instruments were in 

the cabin rather than on the deck. 
181 

These instruments indicate that the vessel was well-appointed for navigation following 

turn-of-the-nineteenth-century trends (Stanbury 1991). The captain or navigator not only had the 

means to determine his location along a familiar shore by searching for hints with the sounding 

lead and telescope, but he also likely had charts, no longer extant but indicated by the measuring 

compass, that would have allowed him to find his way in unknown waters. He also had the 

ability to navigate out of sight of land by taking measurements with the octant and bearings with 

the two compasses that would have allowed him to cross the Gulf of Mexico. 

Analysis shows that these instruments were not of the same vintage or quality and were 

likely acquired at different times. The compasses were not a matched set, and the octant and 

telescope were likely constructed at least two decades apart. Furthermore, the telescope was 

constructed by a firm that received two royal appointments during the second decade of the 

nineteenth century, while the octant appears to have been an inexpensive model constructed 

primarily of wood. It remains unknown whether these purchases reflect the changing economic 

situation of the captain during his career or some other factor. 

Finally, the scattered distribution of the sand-glasses is worth noting. These artifacts 

were collected throughout the area likely occupied by the stern cabin. It seems unlikely that 

these fragile glasses were thrown throughout the cabin without breaking. An alternative 

possibility is that the air contained within the glasses allowed them to float near the cabin ceiling 

until they slowly filled with water that pressed in through their corks and caused them to settle 

into the wreck. 

The final and largest artifact of note, the stern concretion, is actually several artifacts 

concreted together. This concretion contains many of the loose artifacts that were situated within 

the stern cabin at the time of the wreck. While the ceramics, navigational instruments, clothes, 

and personal effects were likely contained in furniture or containers that partially prevented their 

free movement throughout the cabin, other artifacts were certainly loose. This concretion 

appears to contain a substantial amount of cannon shot as well as other iron artifacts, including 

scrap iron and a box containing an axe-head and other items. It is still unclear why cannon shot 

would have been kept in the cabin. The continued excavation and conservation of these artifacts 

may lead to a better understanding of the contents and uses of the stern cabin and the activities 

that took place within this compartment. 

6.1.4 Vessel Correlates 

Based on the above discussion, it is possible to identify three parallels for the Mardi Gras 

vessel from historically-recorded vessels. None of these possible vessels match the hull design 

and layout of the Mardi Gras vessel exactly; however, all three represent viable options, and their 

similarities and differences are discussed in turn below. Furthermore, no images of any of the 

wreck candidates, discussed in that section below, survive, so it is useful to refer to betterdocumented vessels that are not the Mardi Gras Shipwreck but were constructed with similar 

characteristics. It should also be noted that all of these vessels were cargo carriers. Merchant 

schooners were the most common vessels in the Gulf of Mexico during the early nineteenth 

century and, given the available data, a merchant vessel is the most parsimonious interpretation 

of the shipwreck. However, privateers and slave ships were also present. Without full artifact 

recovery or the definitive identification of the vessel it is impossible to rule out these types of 

vessels and they should be considered in any future analysis of this shipwreck. 
182 

“Schooner For Port Jackson,” which was likely built as Mercury (Figures 6.1, 6.2, and 

6.3), was designed by the British Navy Board in 1803/04 and launched in Sydney, Australia in 

1807 (Marquardt 2003). Despite being built on the opposite side of the earth from the Gulf of 

Mexico, its date, size, and interior layout may have been similar to those of the Mardi Gras 

vessel. Mercury measured 53 ft (16.2 m) on deck, 17.5 ft (5.3 m) in beam, with a depth of hold 

of 8 ft (2.4 m) and a capacity of just over 60 tons. In addition to being slightly beamier than the 

average Gulf schooner of the same period (length to beam ratio of 1:3 as compared to 1:3.2 for 

Gulf vessels), Mercury had almost 1.5 ft (45.7 cm) more depth of hold, which allowed it to carry 

slightly more cargo than the average Gulf schooner. These differences are noteworthy, 

especially the increased depth of hold, but are well within the range of Gulf schooners operating 

during the first and second decades of the nineteenth century. 

Figure 6.1. Sheer plan, deck arrangements, and longitudinal view of “Schooner For Port Jackson,” likely 

Mercury (source: Marquardt 2003:105). 
183 

Figure 6.2. Lines drawings, bow and stern view, and main frame cross-section of “Schooner For Port 

Jackson,” likely Mercury (source: Marquardt 2003:106). 

Mercury was flush-decked with a small cabin in the stern and a single large cargo hatch 

between the masts. With the exception of the stern cabin, these features are not extant on the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck but were possibly part of its construction. Mercury also had a small 

forward compartment entered through a hatch on the starboard deck. No evidence for such a 

compartment was recorded on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck but this portion of the wreck was not 

investigated. Mercury was steered with a tiller, which was common for a vessel of this period 

(MacGregor 1984a; Marquardt 2003). A similar arrangement, with the binnacle placed near 

where Mercury’s bell is depicted, may have been used on the Mardi Gras vessel. The topsail 

schooner rig of Mercury (see Figure 6.3) was also likely very similar to that of the Mardi Gras 

vessel. 
184 

Figure 6.3. Rigging plan of “Schooner For Port Jackson,” likely Mercury (source: Marquardt 2003:108). 

The greatest deviation between Mercury and the Mardi Gras vessel is the stern of 

Mercury. Its flat, boat-like appearance is very different from the overhanging stern and counter 

common on most American vessels of the period. This stern and the substantial draft 

(approximately 7 ft [2.1 m]), which would have prevented the vessel from entering major Gulf 

ports such as Pensacola as late as 1819 (Orleans Gazette 18 June 1819), suggest that Mercury is 

a good, but not perfect correlate, for the Mardi Gras vessel. 

The schooner John (Figure 6.4) likely errs in the opposite direction, with its exaggerated 

stern overhang. However, at 43.8-ft (13.4-m) total length, John is a good correlate for a vessel at 

the smallest end of the Mardi Gras vessel range. It was built in Bristol in 1803 to engage in 

inter-island trade out of Barbados and had a beam of 15 ft (4.6 m) and a depth of hold of 6 ft (1.8 

m) for a tonnage of 43–50 (MacGregor 1980). This vessel had a slightly raised quarter deck with 

a covered hatch leading down into an aft cabin. The remainder of the vessel appears to have 

been used for cargo, but there may have been a small forward compartment, although no hatch is 

indicated. Two cargo hatches situated immediately forward of the main mast allowed cargo to 

be placed in the hold. This arrangement leaves more room at the waist for a gun to be operated. 

While John was a simple capacious merchant vessel that likely had many of the features of the 

Mardi Gras vessel, it was slightly beamier (1:2.92) than many Gulf schooners and had a deeper 

draft. Many of the Caribbean islands had good ports that allowed deeper vessels to enter making 

cargo capacity more of a concern than a shoal draft. 
185 

Figure 6.4. Lines and deck plan of John (source: MacGregor 1980:109). 

The final possible correlate, the U.S. schooner Vigilant, is the only one of the three that 

was built specifically for the Gulf of Mexico, but at a later date. No good reconstructions of Gulf 

vessels from the early nineteenth century are available for review; however, the 1843 Vigilant 

was built along the same lines as the 1833 Santiago and demonstrates many of the construction 

characteristics that would have been important to earlier Gulf captains. Vigilant was 56 ft (17.1 

m) on deck, had a moulded beam of 17 ft (4.6 m), a depth of hold of 4.3 ft (1.3 m), and a 

capacity of 50 tons (Marquardt 2003). Despite the slightly shallower than average hold, these 

values conform very closely to those of the average Gulf schooner of two decades earlier (see 

Table 4.2), as does Vigilant’s entry, which likely conforms to the sharp schooners described by 

Chapelle (1949:217). The broad and flat floors of Vigilant may be an exaggerated design to 

allow the schooner to chase smaller vessels into shoal waters. Vigilant’s design was also 

facilitated by the presence of a centerboard within the vessel’s hull. Centerboards were 

introduced during the eighteenth century and came to prevalence in the Great Lakes following 

the War of 1812 (Chapelle 1935:166, 268); however, it is unknown when they were introduced 

to the Gulf of Mexico. Despite these caveats, the hull of Vigilant is likely a closer approximation 

of the hull form of the Mardi Gras vessel than either of the previous correlates. Conversely, the 

deck and interior arrangements of Vigilant (not shown) may not mirror those of the Mardi Gras 
186 

vessel because Vigilant was outfitted solely for combat, not commerce. Similarly, the rig of 

Vigilant with its dolphin-striker and later schooner design is probably more complex than the 

spars and sails of the Mardi Gras vessel. Dolphin strikers were introduced ca. 1793 but may not 

have been fully-adopted by schooners of this period in the Gulf (Jackson 1969:71, 80, 86; Lees 

1984:32). Beyond being more modern, Vigilant’s rig was more aggressive than that of most 

contemporary merchant vessels, with more sails worked by a larger crew. 

Figure 6.5. Lines and sail plan of U.S. schooner Vigilant (source: Marquardt 2003:127). 
187 

In summary, it is possible that the Mardi Gras vessel had a hull form similar to, but 

slightly deeper than, that of Vigilant, but with a rig more akin to that of Mercury (however, since 

each rig was balanced to the needs of the hull, it would be a mistake to simply transfer Mercury’s 

rig to Vigilant). The deck arrangement and interior divisions may have been similar to those of 

Mercury and John. It is unknown if the Mardi Gras vessel had a quarter deck like John or was 

flush-decked similar to Mercury. However, it was almost certainly steered with a simple tiller 

attached to the rudder. 

6.2 Crew Size and Nationality 

The number and nationality of the men (no evidence of women was recovered from the 

wreck, see the discussion of buttons in the Metal section of Chapter 5) who inhabited these 

spaces will likely never be known for certain; however, the archaeological and historical records 

do provide some clues. Several sets of three were noted among the Mardi Gras tablewares, 

including three spoons, three tea bowls and saucers, and three plates. It is unknown if this 

number corresponds to the entire crew or just those who messed with the captain in the cabin, but 

the diminutive size of the stove argues for a small crew. Many primary and secondary sources 

discuss larger vessels (e.g. 10 men for a 200 ton ship, or 6 men for a later brig of approximately 

the same size [Gardiner 1993:45–46; MacGregor 1980:8]), but Francaviglia (1998:88) states that 

the early nineteenth century schooner Lively of approximately 30 tons was crewed by four or 

five. This low number is supported by data from the consular records of Matamoras and 

Galveston and other Gulf of Mexico primary sources that indicate that most merchant vessels 

similar in size to the Mardi Gras vessel carried two to eight men (average of five) while 

privateers were often crewed by upwards of 18 individuals (see section 4.8). Similarly, British 

vessels working the coast of England that averaged 43 tons and were crewed by an average of 

2.8 men per vessel (Gardiner 1995:23). Closer to the wreck site, the average tons per man ratio 

for all of the North American colonies in 1772 was 13.9, or approximately 4 men for a vessel 

similar to the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (Gardiner 1995:28). Consequently, three should be 

considered the minimum crew of the Mardi Gras ship, but it is possible that other individuals 

were also onboard. While even a crew of six may seem remarkably low, both the late 

eighteenth-century introduction of the schooner rig and the improvements to Gulf ports during 

the early nineteenth century helped to increase shipping efficiency and keep crew costs low. 

Schooner rigs require fewer men than sloop rigs for similarly-sized vessels because the sheets 

were divided into more manageable portions. Fore-and-aft sails also generally required fewer 

sailors than square-rigged sails due to the mechanics of handling sails (Gardiner 1993: 45–46; 

Gardiner 1995:28). Efficient ports with loading and discharging facilities and stevedores further 

helped reduce the number of crew that the vessel carried (MacGregor 1980:8). As commerce 

developed in the major Gulf ports, vessels only had to carry sufficient men to operate the ship, 

rather than including extra men to help with handling the cargo. 

Archaeologists often argue for the nationality or cultural affiliation of a vessel’s crew 

based on the artifacts recovered from the wreck. This argument is generally made based on the 

origins of the personal artifacts and tablewares, following the assumptions that, even at sea, 

sailors would want some small piece of home, and that few aspects of culture are more closely 

associated with the home-hearth than food. However, this argument does not apply to the crew 

of the Mardi Gras vessel. They ate with French spoons off British creamware and chased their 

French wine with coffee, possibly obtained from Brazil and served in British tea bowls 

(Pendergrast 1999). The identifiable navigation instruments were predominantly of English 
188 

manufacture, but London instruments were carried by mariners world-wide (Stanbury 1991:197). 

Conversely, the weapons associated with the vessel were a motley assortment, including at least 

one German or Dutch longarm. Even American producers were possibly evident in at least one 

of the stoneware jugs (artifact no. 205). The only pattern discernible from this wide variety of 

artifacts is that of a captain operating in a cosmopolitan region with no strong ties to any single 

nation or identity. The captain appears to have given up any markers of his birth nation in favor 

of items that were readily available and fulfilled his needs at the time. It is unlikely that the 

captain bought spoons from one nation and ceramics from another in an attempt to disguise his 

nationality, but such a mixed assemblage may indicate an individual not tightly bound to a single 

nation. Similar to employees in modern transnational corporations, this may have been a 

conscious decision to identify himself as a citizen of the Gulf, rather than as a citizen of a 

specific nation, in order to make it easier to navigate the treacherous political scene of the Gulf 

of Mexico during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The artifact assemblage 

may also be indicative of the Creole culture of Louisiana or the generally multi-cultural nature of 

the Gulf of Mexico, or it may have simply been the result of many small purchases with no 

driving philosophy. These same arguments may have been true of the crew as well, but their 

signature is less evident in the material culture record. 

6.3 Cargo and Ports of Origin and Destination 

Little, if any, evidence of the Mardi Gras cargo is extant. Presumably, the space between 

the bulkhead and the anchor was the cargo hold, and the vessel appears to have had a cargo when 

it sank, as no ballast stone was noted. No trenches were excavated in the center of the shipwreck 

site so it is possible that ballast lays undiscovered beneath the sediment. It can be inferred that 

the vessel was carrying a perishable cargo that did not survive two centuries on the seafloor. The 

principal exports of New Orleans, cotton, tobacco, coffee, and sugar, fall into that category, as do 

many of its secondary goods (Bauer 1988:128; De Grummond and Morazan 1961:62; 

Mississippi Messenger 11 February 1808). Core samples and pollen analysis of sediments from 

this portion of the site could potentially identify the main cargo. 

The contents of the weapons box may or may not have been intended for sale. While 

there is ample evidence that gun-running was a profitable and popular occupation in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the guns could have been carried as part of a mixed cargo, there is evidence that no 

conscientious captain would venture out into the Gulf of the early nineteenth century without 

sufficient arms to protect his vessel (see Chapter 4). A cargo of a single crate of mixed weapons, 

containing approximately 21 longarms, seven pistols, and two edged weapons, is far lower than 

the average arms cargo for this period (see Arms and Munitions section of Chapter 4; Davis 

2005:309; Faye 1939:1091). However, this number also exceeds the number of weapons 

necessary to arm a merchant crew, although each man could have used more than one weapon in 

a pitched battle where reloading took valuable time. A well-armed crew on deck may have also 

been a deterrent to an attacker. The position of the crate within what may have been the stern 

cabin also suggests that it may have been part of the ship’s equipment rather than cargo. While 

this area would have likely been drier than the hold and could have been used to transport 

valuable cargo, the numbers of guns carried as cargo on other vessels of the period suggest that 

weapons cargos were regularly carried in the hold. 

Without knowing the cargo of the vessel it is difficult to hypothesize the origin or 

destination for the Mardi Gras vessel on its final voyage. The location of the shipwreck, at the 
189 

cross-roads of the historic Gulf of Mexico shipping lanes, similarly offers no clues (see Figure 

4.1). The only suggestion of the vessel’s port of origin comes from the mixed artifact 

assemblage. Most major ports in the region, including Pensacola, New Orleans, Jamaica, 

Campeche, and Veracruz, would have offered goods from around the world. However, the 

spoons (artifact no. 228) and the stoneware ink or oil bottle (artifact no. 102) both hint at a recent 

stop in New Orleans. While France was a major producer of pewter, its production for the 

American market lagged far behind that of Britain and was consequently not often encountered 

outside of French-dominated portions of the United States (Farber 1974:ix; Hornsby 1983:20). 

As a stronghold of French culture on the Gulf Coast, even after France’s official removal from 

the region, New Orleans is the most likely source of these spoons. Similarly, the stoneware 

bottle was likely produced in France and is strongly associated with New Orleans (Greer 

1981:247–248). These artifacts, as well as the location of the site, suggest that the vessel may 

have been leaving New Orleans or returning there as its home port when it wrecked. 

6.4 Mardi Gras Shipwreck Candidates 

The difficulties of identifying specific wrecks in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

have been noted elsewhere (Garrison et al. 1989a:II-115; Lugo-Fernández et al. 2007; Pearson et 

al. 2003:3–10). These difficulties stem from the unlikelihood that anyone would have survived a 

wreck far from shore or that the location of the sinking would have been accurately noted by 

passing vessels. The situation is further exacerbated by the paucity of surviving historical 

documentation for wrecks in the Gulf of Mexico during this period and the tendencies of 

swamped vessels to float partially submerged for substantial distances before settling on the 

ocean floor (Oertling 1984:8–10). Thus, there are a substantial number of vessels that are 

described as “lost at sea” or that simply disappear from the historical record. 

These generally-accepted assumptions were borne out by the review of historical 

newspapers. Five shipwrecks were identified in these newspapers: Resource (Louisiana 

Advertiser 14 July 1820), Harriet (Alabama Watchman 18 August 1820), Constitution

(Louisiana Advertiser 18 November 1820), Williams (Louisiana Advertiser 22 July 1820), and an 

unknown ship (Orleans Gazette 3 July 1819). All of these vessels were lost on rocks, reefs, or 

banks in the vicinity of shore and, with the exception of the unnamed ship, had known survivors. 

Despite these difficulties, Table 6.2 lists ten vessels that could be the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck. This list was extracted from the Gulf of Mexico Ship Database compiled by Amy 

Borgens from primary and secondary sources. The criterion for inclusion on this list was 

wrecking between 1808 and 1825 in the Gulf of Mexico either in the vicinity of the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck or within the Gulf without specific coordinates or geographic features. Given our 

limited knowledge of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck and the relative silence of the historical record, 

caution dictates that the list of wreck candidates remains long and that it be remembered that the 

name of the wrecked vessel may not appear in the table. 

Despite these caveats, some of the vessels in Table 6.2 are better candidates than others. 

For example, the ship Cacique and the frigate Muros were likely significantly larger than the 

vessel suggested by the debris scatter and scantlings of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. Other 

vessels, such as Lynx and General Jackson, were much more heavily-armed than the Mardi Gras 

vessel. However, given the disagreement that accompanies most armament lists and the 

potential for guns to be lost overboard during a wreck, these vessels can be considered low-to- 
190 
191 
192 

moderate potential candidates. Also of moderate potential are Santa Maria and Federal. Both 

of these vessels were Mexican in origin and do not fit with the artifacts recovered from the 

shipwreck. Given the cosmopolitan nature of the Gulf of Mexico during the early nineteenth 

century, these wrecks can not be ruled out absolutely, but more evidence than two Mexicominted coins would be expected on a Mexican vessel. 

The remaining four vessels should be considered moderate-high potential candidates, 

partially through our ignorance of their nature and demise. Los Tres Hermanos was sighted and 

pursued approximately 250 miles (400 km) from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck site. However, it 

was not recorded where the vessel was taken and burned. It is possible that the vessel was 

chased a substantial distance before being taken and may have also floated prior to sinking. The 

lack of evidence for burning on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck, however, is troubling. Carbonized 

wood generally survives better underwater than unburned wood because boring mollusks do not 

attack it and it is less susceptible to other forms of degradation. Similarly, none of the recovered 

artifacts were fire damaged. 

Very little is known about the sloop Bermuda that was lost in 1816. The date and 

approximate size of this vessel are consistent with the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. Similarly, the 

presence of 76 men on the vessel could explain the lack of evident cargo. However, based on the 

good preservation of personal belongings in the cabin, some of these men’s possession would 

have been expected to have been exposed forward of the bulkhead. 

Sea Horse would be an excellent candidate except its recorded location of loss is nearly 

100 miles (160 km) from the wreck site. Sea Horse was approximately the same size as the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck and its armament of a single 6-pounder matches the recovered cannon. 

However, Sea Horse was destroying supplies at Bay St. Louis when it was attacked by seven 

British barges. The continued and effective assault of these barges suggests that the entire 

engagement likely took place in protected waters. While it is possible that the barges chased Sea 

Horse into the open Gulf, it is less likely that Master Johnson would have felt pressed enough by 

them to burn his vessel once he reached open water. Consequently, the burning Sea Horse

would have had to drift a substantial distance, possibly past the Chandeleur Islands, to reach the 

Mardi Gras Shipwreck site. The mixed longarm assemblage associated with the shipwreck 

would not be expected with a military vessel. 

The final shipwreck candidate, Petite-Milan, is also a close, but not perfect, match for the 

Mardi Gras vessel. The rig and approximate size (50 tons) of this vessel suggest it was similar to 

the Mardi Gras vessel (Davis 2005:191). The fact that it was sailing out of New Orleans when it 

was lost in a March 1816 storm also places it within the geographical and chronological scope of 

the Mardi Gras Shipwreck. The armament of Petite-Milan, including a nine-pound cannon and a 

smaller gun mounted on a pivot, was slightly larger than the six-pound cannon recovered from 

the wreck site, but this difference is not significant, given the flexibility of most vessel arms lists, 

and the fact that these guns were recorded a year before the vessel was lost (Davis 2005:236). 

The biggest difficulty with identifying the Mardi Gras Shipwreck with Petit-Milan is that PetiteMilan may have been carrying a cargo of guns when it sank during a storm between New 

Orleans and Boquilla de Piedras, north of Veracruz (Davis 2005:299). The historical record is 

not clear on the nature of Petite-Milan cargo when it sank, but its primary occupation around the 

time of its loss seems to have been transporting arms. If the vessel was carrying guns, they may 

have been salvaged from the vessel before it sank. However, the lack of any testimony regarding 

the loss of Petite-Milan suggests that no one saw it sink and that it was not in a convoy. 
193 

Similarly, the loss of the schooner in a storm likely precluded the organized and complete 

removal of all crates from the hold. However, the vessel may have been on the return leg of its 

journey, having disposed of the guns in Boquilla de Piedras, explaining the absence of an arms 

cargo. Similarly, all but one of the crates of weapons could have been jettisoned prior to the 

sinking if the crew was attempting to save the ship by lightening its burden. 

Thus, Petite-Milan and Sea Horse are the strongest identified candidates for the Mardi 

Gras Shipwreck. However, neither is a perfect match and it is very possible that a yet 

unidentified shipwreck is a better candidate. While it is tempting to associate the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck with a pirate ship once owned by the Laffite brothers (Petite-Milan), such a claim 

cannot be made with any certainty and is possibly contradicted by the available evidence. Piracy 

and the Laffites are an important aspect of Louisiana and New Orleans popular culture and 

pirates were certainly active in the Gulf of Mexico (Davis 2005; De Grummond 1983; Faye 

1939). It is exceptionally difficult to distinguish armed merchant vessels and privateers/pirates, 

especially in the Gulf of Mexico where many privateers carried only one or two cannon 

(Skowronek and Ewen 2007). However, pirate vessels and privateers were a minority to lawful 

commercial vessels, and given the lack of conclusive evidence, there should be no rush to 

identify the Mardi Gras Shipwreck as anything other than a merchant vessel. Lusardi’s 

(2006:215) comments on the much more substantiated connections between the Beaufort Inlet 

Shipwreck and Black Beard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge are pertinent: “Unfortunately, 

circumstantial evidence alone does not warrant a positive identification,” especially in regards to 

such a publicly attractive topic as piracy. 

6.5 Directions for Future Research at the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

None of the above should be taken to imply that the Mardi Gras Shipwreck is not a 

significant archaeological site. The Mardi Gras Shipwreck is considered potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If the shipwreck is in fact the remains of a 

privateer it would be one of only a small number of similarly identified vessels. As a cargocarrying merchant vessel it has the potential to substantially increase our understanding of 

commerce and ship construction in the early nineteenth-century Gulf of Mexico. To that end, 

there are several additional research questions that can still be addressed through the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck. These questions extend beyond the research questions identified in Chapter 3 and 

addressed throughout this report. 

One of the easiest additional questions to answer would be the cargo of the vessel. Since 

a perishable cargo was likely and much of the perishable goods transported through the Gulf of 

Mexico were plant products, several cores taken from the area forward of the bulkhead and 

analyzed for pollen remains could address this question. If cargo or ballast is situated beneath 

the sediment, they would be encountered in these cores and suggest the need for further 

excavation. Similarly, a lack of pollen would suggest another cargo that could be investigated 

through test excavations within the hold area. 

These excavations would be best conducted in conjunction with another research 

objective such as studying the hull of the vessel. Very little is known about late eighteenth and 

early nineteenth century ship construction in the Gulf of Mexico. Much of what we know about 

merchant ship construction for this period comes from historical documentation of the U.S. East 

Coast and occasionally the Caribbean Islands, both of which had different forms of commerce 

and ports. The early nineteenth century was a period of significant changes in wooden ship 
194 

construction as industrialization spread through shipyards and the global economy became more 

pronounced. 

Consequently, one of the primary questions remaining about the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 

vessel is how it was built. Based on the results presented in this report, it is possible to estimate 

the location of the keelson and mast-steps. Focused excavations in these areas as well as a trench 

across the beam of the vessel to investigate the framing pattern would help to place the Gulf 

within the larger history of wooden ship design and construction. For example, the number and 

position of the mast-step(s) would conclusively identify the rig of the vessel, while basic 

dimensions and descriptions of the floors and futtocks would help to explain the intentions of its 

original constructor. It would also be useful to identify the ends of the keel and possibly the 

remains of the posts to solidify the length of the vessel. 

A more advanced research question would be to identify the shape of the hull. The small 

excavations conducted as part of this data recovery plan suggest that the lower hull on at least the 

starboard side is partially intact beneath the sediments. Measurements of the angles of these 

timbers would suggest the shape, size, and capacity of the vessel. It would also be interesting to 

note if there was evidence of a centerboard. The use of centerboards is known from other shoal 

environments of the early nineteenth century and later periods in the Gulf of Mexico; however, 

its introduction to the Gulf has not been effectively dated. These excavations would also identify 

any ballast, which would bear on the type of cargo the vessel was carrying. 

Finally, these excavations would likely identify other artifacts. The mandate of this data 

recovery program was to remove visible artifacts from the seafloor. Thus, excavation was not a 

primary goal. It is likely that there are still artifacts between where the stern concretion was 

situated and the weapons box. Similarly, an excavation near the anchors may reveal evidence of 

a larger crew housed in the forecastle. The most easily identified of these additional artifacts is 

the weapons box, but it is not likely alone within the wreck site. The weapons box casts a 

shadow on a sector-scanning sonar image (see Figure 3.8), and may as a result attract unwanted 

attention to the site. This crate may also contain clues to the identity of the wreck. As stated in 

Chapter 5, such assemblages may contain important diagnostic information such as national 

affiliations, dates, manufacturers, and military designations. However, given the clearly mixed 

nature of the weapons and the wealth of other artifact data recovered from the site, the weapons 

box may not significantly refine the current interpretation. Consequently, unless the visibility of 

the crate is of primary concern or other diagnostic artifacts are uncovered by natural processes, 

the relatively simple task of collecting core samples and the more involved but potentially very 

informative investigation of the hull remains should be given precedent over additional artifact 

recovery. 

The Mardi Gras Shipwreck and other deep wrecks in the Gulf of Mexico should also be 

considered in terms of their preservation and the types of information that can be gathered from 

these sites. Neither of the well-investigated Gulf of Mexico deep wooden shipwrecks, Mardi 

Gras or Mica, contain particularly well-preserved hull remains. The Piña Colada Wreck, located 

in a similar latitude, appears somewhat better-preserved but certainly deteriorated. Much of this 

deterioration appears to be due to deep-adapted boring mollusks that were likely present within 

the hull when the wrecks occurred. This state of preservation is in direct opposition to wrecks 

situated deep in northern lakes (e.g. Hamilton, Scourge and E. Nordevall) and seas (e.g. Anna 

Maria and Vrouw Maria) that exhibit tremendous preservation (although they are much 

shallower than the Mardi Gras vessel). Nor do the iron artifacts from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck 
195 

exhibit a significantly different state of preservation from iron artifacts recovered from other 

marine contexts (John Hamilton, personal communication). Large-scale archaeological 

investigations of the specific factors pertaining to preservation in the Gulf of Mexico have been 

initiated but will require additional work (Church et al. 2007). In the meantime, data from 

individual deep-water shipwreck excavations should be collected and the preservation of each 

wreck judged on an individual basis. 

6.6 Future Directions in Deep-Water Archaeology 

Deep-water archaeology is a nascent field with few successful excavations (Alfsen 2006; 

Jeffrey Morris posting on SUB-ARCH 28 October 2007) and widely varying opinions about its 

feasibility, especially vis-à-vis the costs (SUB-ARCH discussion 28–29 October 2007). For 

these reasons, there are few standard procedures for excavations in deep water and each project 

provides the opportunity for substantial improvement over the last. For example, the Mardi Gras 

Shipwreck excavation made significant strides beyond the Mica Shipwreck excavation (Atauz et 

al. 2006; Jones 2004), partially as a result of the similar environments of the two wrecks and the 

involvement of many of the same parties. However, there is still much room for advancement 

within the science of deep-water archaeology. 

In deep water, where visibility is less of a problem than the dexterity to collect 

trilateration or direct survey measurements, the creation of an accurate photomosaic is an 

excellent way to map the site. The mosaic of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck and the site plan created 

from this mosaic ultimately achieved an accuracy of approximately 30 cm. However, there were 

several setbacks that required a significant amount of time to rectify that could be avoided in the 

future. Much of the difficulty faced during the Mardi Gras Shipwreck data recovery program 

stemmed from the mosaic and image capture capabilities of the project. These difficulties can be 

traced to two sources: the ROV and the camera. Future deep-water mosaicing projects must 

utilize a ROV with both a gyro and a motion sensor. The gyro would allow the ROV pilot to 

maintain a consistent heading rather than relying on planned survey track lines. Similarly, the 

motion sensor would allow for better navigation, recording the pitch, roll, yaw, and altitude of 

the ROV. These attributes should be recorded or linked to each image to permit automatic 

mosaicing in ER-Mapper or similar software. The ROV should also be outfitted with a 

minimum of four HMI lights to illuminate the entire field of view. The best arrangement for 

these lights is several feet away on all sides of the camera in order to limit or eliminate the 

appearance of shadows. 

Several improvements to the camera would also facilitate the creation of deep-water 

mosaics. The camera must be able to collect images in a raw format in order to facilitate postprocess color balancing. Images saved as jpegs are insufficient for this process. The camera 

should also be able to record and display both still photographs and live video without text 

overlay. The automatic attachment of data to the margins of photographs is beneficial for some 

photographs but leads to difficulties in images used for mosaics. The ability to control camera 

functions (in particular, shutter speed, white balance, and ISO) from the surface would also make 

for better images and consequently better mosaics. External to the camera but closely-related to 

its successful operation, a direct feed between the camera and the surface along with appropriate 

laser scales are also beneficial. Blue-green laser scales should be employed throughout the 

mosaic image collection process to ensure that the ROV altitude is monitored and accurately 

recorded. A direct connection between the camera and surface is preferable to storing the images 
196 

on the camera because it allows for nearly unlimited memory and, consequently, extended ROV 

flights, while collecting the highest possible quality images. This direct link would also permit 

better management of the data, without the chance of the ROV descending before previous 

images were downloaded and with fewer opportunities for the image files to be mislabeled or 

stored in the wrong location. 

The photomosaic collection methodology could also be altered with good results. Instead 

of taking all mosaics from a single altitude it would be better to collect images for several 

mosaics at different scales. By beginning with a high-altitude mosaic constructed from a few 

images, and moving to an intermediate-altitude mosaic, before collecting the high-resolution, 

low-altitude mosaic images, the archaeologists would have multiple images that they could 

compare. The high-altitude mosaic would not be acceptable as a site map due to the information 

lost through low-light and turbidity, but it would help to anchor the other mosaics through the 

relative positions of large or highly visible artifacts. Conversely, the difficulties in accurately 

assembling the high-resolution mosaic would be mitigated by comparing them with the highaltitude image. The moderate-altitude image could be used as a bridge between the high- and 

low-resolution mosaics and employed to resolve any apparent conflicts between the images. All 

of this technology and the associated methodologies should be tested in a controlled environment 

prior to the beginning of fieldwork. Deep-water archaeology is too expensive and prone to 

technological difficulties for any controllable variable to be left to chance. 

In addition to these specific adjustments to the photomosaic collection, several other 

general suggestions can be made for future excavations. A more-refined excavation method 

needs to be developed. Just as backhoes are often appropriate for terrestrial archaeological 

surveys and site identifications, but not generally employed for data recoveries unless the site is 

deeply buried, uncontrolled dredging should be avoided during deep-water data recoveries. 

While the system employed on the Mardi Gras Shipwreck resulted in acceptable provenience 

data for the majority of artifacts, the system could be improved through modified dredge and 

collection tools. A precision dredge with a smaller head and the ability to draw at less than 17 

gallons per minute would be beneficial, especially for working in areas with heavy artifact 

concentrations or the expectation of a significant number of small finds. This technology would 

lend itself to the identification and mapping of small finds before they were gathered by the 

dredge. 

The efficiency of each ROV dive could also be increased through the use of a 

compartmentalized collection unit. The current collection method, with a single expanded-steel 

mesh “backpack,” allowed for the collection of artifacts from only one area at a time. Given the 

long ascent and descent times associated with working in deep water, this configuration tended 

to place pressure on archaeologists to excavate a larger area than would be acceptable in a 

similar situation on land or in shallower water, and, therefore, reduce the control over 

provenience. The use of veins or cylinders within the “backpack” would alleviate this pressure 

by permitting multiple areas to be excavated before the ROV needed to return to the surface 

(Donny Hamilton, personal communication; Jack Irion, personal communication). With this 

arrangement, areas of a specified extent and depth could be excavated and the associated artifacts 

segregated before moving to another area. Multiple small areas could be precisely excavated 

using this methodology with no loss in efficiency. 

Excavation and artifact recovery would also benefit from the application of specific “softtouch” tools. “Soft-touch” tools are those that introduce a medium of padding or protection 
197 

between the artifacts and the ROV manipulators, which have no sense of feeling and can apply 

sufficient pressure to crush nearly all archaeological materials, while still maintaining a 

substantial amount of rigidity and control to facilitate precise manipulation of the tool. The 

suction pickers, especially the bellows variety, used to recover much of the glassware and 

ceramics from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck typify this type of tool. These tools will need to be 

specifically designed for the excavation at hand but should feature sufficient capacity to recover 

a range of artifacts and collection edges/mouths that permit them to gather a desired artifact in a 

single attempt with minimal disturbance of the bottom and without the potential to push the 

artifact into undisturbed sediments. These tools should also be shaped so that they provide good 

visibility for the ROV pilot while causing the least possible amount of disturbance to the 

seafloor. These collection tools could be aided by an excavation method that combines a secure 

grip on the artifact with precise dredging of the contiguous sediments. This methodology would 

likely require an ROV with two seven-function manipulators, but it would allow the available 

suction pickers to be used on a wider range of artifacts. The greatest difficulty with the suction 

pickers is their inability to form a tight enough seal on the artifact to provide sufficient suction to 

pull the artifact free of the bottom. The addition of a small dredge would allow the surface of the 

artifact to be cleaned prior to the application of the suction picker, allowing for a better seal and 

limiting the potential for the picker to become clogged with debris. The lifting power of the 

picker could also be augmented by using the dredge to break the surface tension of the sediment 

and relieve the picker of the initial effort. 

In conclusion, the Gulf of Mexico clearly contains deep-water shipwrecks from all 

periods of European occupation; many of these wrecks will have the potential to contribute 

significantly to our understanding of commerce, technology, and culture. However, each 

shipwreck must be considered individually in terms of its preservation and potential significance 

in relation to the cost of excavating in deep water. As the methodologies and technologies for 

deep-water excavations are refined through well-funded and intelligently-conceived projects, 

these costs will likely be reduced and investigations of a wider variety of sites will become 

feasible. 
198 
199 

7.0 References Cited 

Adams, William Hampton 

2003 Dating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag. Historical 

Archaeology 37(2):38–64. 

Ahearn, Bill 

2005 Swords from the Public Collections in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Andrew Mowbray Publishers, Lincoln, RI. 

Alabama Watchman 

1820 Shipwreck. Alabama Watchman, 18 August 1820, page 2. 

Albert, Lillian and Jane Adams 

1951 The Button Sampler. Gramercy, New York. 

Alfsen, Marianne 

2006 Digging Deep. Archaeology 59(3):28–33. 

Amer, Christopher 

1986 The Construction of the Browns Bay Vessel. MA Thesis, Anthropology 

Department, Texas A&M University, College Station. 

Amer, Christopher and Frederick Hocker 

1995 A Comparative Analysis of Three Sailing Merchant Vessels from the Carolina 

Coast. In Tidecraft: The Boats of South Carolina, Georgia and Northeastern 

Florida, 1550–1950, by William Fleetwood, Jr., pp. 295–303. WBG Marine 

Press, Tybee Island, GA. 

Anderson, R.C. 

1982 The Rigging of Ships in the Days of Spritsail Topmast 1600–1720. Cornell 

Maritime Press, Centreville, MD. 

Anonymous 

1887 Map of Louisiana. Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia. 

Anonymous 

1900 Société des Archives Historiques, Xtéme Volume. Société des Archives 

Historiques, Paris, FR. 

Ascroft, Sheila and Suzanne Rochette 

1992 Wreck of the Auguste. National Historic Sites, Parks Service, Environment 

Canada, Ottawa, ON. 
200 

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. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2006–072. 

Atkinson, L., P. Hamilton, T. Sturges, and F. Vukovich 

1986 Gulf of Mexico Physical Oceanography Program, Final Report, Years 1 and 2, 

Two Volumes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 14-12-

0001-29158. 

Aury, Louis M. 

1808 Aury to the Maignets, Samana, San Domingo, 8 September 1808 in Lancaster E. 

Dabney, Louis Aury: The First Governor of Texas Under the Mexican Republic. 

Southwestern Historical Quarterly 42(2):109. 

1812 Aury to the Maignets, Baltimore, Maryland, 1812 in Lancaster E. Dabney, Louis 

Aury: The First Governor of Texas under the Mexican Republic. Southwestern 

Historical Quarterly 42(2):109. 

Bailey, Chris 

1975 Two Hundred Years of American Clocks and Watches. Rutledge, Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ. 

Baily, De Witt 

1997 Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms 1718–1783. Thomas 

Publications, Gettysburg. 

Barker, David 

2007 Creamware in Context. In Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by 

Tom Walford and Roger Massey, pp. 31–42. English Ceramic Circle, Kent, UK. 

Barker, Eugene 

1927 The Austin Papers October 1834–January 1837. University of Texas, Austin. 

Barnes, J. 

1998 Florida’s Hurricane History. University of North Carolina Press, Charleston. 

Bascom, Willard 

1971 Deep-Water Archaeology. Science 174(4006):261–269. 

1976 Deep Water, Ancient Ships: The Treasure Vault of the Mediterranean. 

Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY. 
201 

Bauer, K. Jack 

1988 A Maritime History of the United States. University of South Carolina Press, 

Columbia. 

Bazelon, Bruce S. 

1987 Swords from the Public Collections in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Andrew Mowbray Publishers, Lincoln, RI. 

Bealer, Alex 

1989 Old Ways of Working Wood. Bonanza Books, New York. 

Bedini, Silvio 

1964 Early American Scientific Instruments and Their Makers. Museum of History and 

Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Benninghoff, W. S. 

1942 The pollen analysis of the lower peat. In The Boylston Street Fish Weir, edited by 

F.E.A. Johnson, pp. 96–104. vol. 2. 2 vols. The Peabody Foundation, Andover, 

MA. 

Bense, J. 

1988 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Deadman's Island. Report prepared for 

the City of Gulf Breeze, University of West Florida, Pensacola. 

1999 Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Biddlecombe, George 

1979 The Art of Rigging. Edward W. Sweetman, New York. 

Bidwell, Robert L. 

1960 The First Mexican Navy 1821–1830. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 

Department of History, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 

Bingeman, John and Arthur Mack 

1997 The Dating of Military Buttons: Second Interim Report Based on Artefacts 

Recovered from the 18th-Century Wreck Invincible, between 1979 and 1990. 

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 26(1):39–50. 

Bloom, A.L. 

1983 Sea Level and Coastal Morphology of the United States Through the Late 

Wisconsin Glacial Maximim. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United 

States, Vol. I., H.E. Wright, Jr. general editor, pp 215–229. University of 

Minnesota, Minneapolis. 
202 

van den Bold, M.C., T.F. Moslow, and J.M. Coleman 

1987 Origin and Timing of Seafloor Erosion on the Louisiana Continental Slope. Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 37:487–498. 

Borgens, Amy A. 

2004 Analysis of the Pass Cavallo Wreck Assemblage, Matagorda Bay, Texas. 

Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College 

Station. 

Boudriot, Jean 

1986 The Seventy-Four Gun Ship, Fitting Out the Hull, Volume II. Naval Institute 

Press, Annapolis. 

1987 The Seventy-Four Gun Ship, Masts, Sails, Rigging, Volume III. Naval Institute 

Press, Annapolis. 

1997 Armes a feu Francaises Modeles Reglementaires, 1717–1836. 4 Vols. Editions 

du Portail, Paris. 

Brinckerhoff, S.B. and P.A. Chamberlain 

1972 Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700–1821. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, PA. 

Brinckerhoff, Sidney B. and Odie B. Faulk 

1965 Lancers for the King; A Study of the Frontier Military System of Northern New 

Spain, with a Translation of the Royal Regulations of 1772. Arizona Historical 

Foundation, Phoenix. 

Brown, Joyce 

1979 Mathematical Instrument-Makers in the Grocers’ Company, 1688–1800. Science 

Museum, London. 

Brown, Kenneth M., Anne A. Fox, Joseph H. Labadie, Samuel P. Nesmith, Paul S. Storch, David 

D. Turner, Shirley Van der Veer, and Alisa J. Winkler 

1986 La Villita Earthworks (41 BX 677): San Antonio, Texas. Edited by J. H. Labadie. 

The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio. 

Brown, Margaret K. 

1971 Glass from Fort Michilimackinac: A Classification for Eighteenth Century Glass. 

The Michigan Archaeologist 17(3–4):97–215. 

Brown, M.L. 

1980 Firearms in Colonial America 1492–1792: The Impact on History and 

Technology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 
203 

Brown, Ruth R. 

2007 Report No. 91. Unpublished Evaluation of Artifact No. 16GM01-400 submitted 

to the Conservation Research Laboratory on 10 August 2007. 

Bruyns, W F.J.Mörzer and A.J. van der Horst 

2006 Navigational Equipment from ‘t Vliegend Hart (1735). International Journal of 

Nautical Archaeology 35(2):319–325. 

Bryant, V. M. and S. A. Hall. 

1993 Archaeological palynology in the United States: A critique. American Antiquity

58:277–286. 

Bryant, V. M., D. Mildenhall, and J.G. Jones. 

1990 Forensic Palynology in the United States of America. Palynology 14:193–208. 

Bryant, W.R. 

1986 Physiography and Bathymetry. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin, The Geology of 

North America, vol. J. A. Salvador, general editor pp. 13–30. Geological Society 

of America, Boulder. 

Bryant, W.R., J.Y. Liu, and J. Ponthier 

1995 The Engineering and Geological Constraints of Intraslope Basins and Submarine 

Canyons of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association of 

Geological Societies Transactions 45:95–101. 

Bryce, Douglas 

1984 Weaponry from the Machualt: An 18th-Century French Frigate. National 

Historic Parks and Sites Branch. Parks Canada, Ottawa. 

Bruton, Eric 

1967 Clocks and Watches 1400–1900. Frederick A. Praeger, New York. 

Busch, Jane 

1991 Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse. In Approaches to Material 

Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, edited by George Miller, Olive 

Jones, Lester Ross, and Teresita Majewski, pp. 113–126. Society for Historical 

Archaeology, California, PA. 

Campbell, Randolph B. 

2003 Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State. Oxford University Press, New 

York. 

Casey, Powell A. 

1987 Louisiana at the Battle of New Orleans. Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association. 
204 

Castañeda, Carlos E. (translator) 

1970 The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, 2nd ed. Graphic Ideas, Austin. 

Chapelle, Howard I. 

1935 The History of American Sailing Ships. Bonanza Books, New York. 

1949 The History of the American Sailing Navy, The Ships and Their Development. 

Bonanza Books, New York. 

Chew, Beverly 

1817 30 August 1817. Collectors Office of New Orleans in Dispatches from United 

States Consuls in Galveston 1832–1846 Vol. 1 National Archives, National 

Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington. 

National Archives microfilm publications, microcopy no. 281. Evans Library, 

Texas A&M University. 

Chipman, Donald E. 

1992 Spanish Texas 1519–1821. University of Texas Press, Austin. 

Church, R., D. Warren, R. Cullimore, L. Johnston, W. Schroeder, W. Patterson, T. Shirley, M. 

Kilgour, N. Morris, and J. Moore 

2007 Archaeological and Biological Analysis of World War II Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico: Artificial Reef Effect in Deep Water. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2007–015. 

Clifton, Gloria 

1995 Directory of British Scientific Instrument Makers 1550–1851. Zwemmer, 

London. 

Clowes, William I. 

1900 The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present. Sampson, 

Low, Maraten and Company, London. 

Clutton, Cecil 

1973 Britten’s Old Clocks and Watches and Their Makers. E.P. Dutton, New York. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. 

1977 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. 

3 volumes. Prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc., for the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office. Springfield, 

Virginia: National Technical Information Service. 

Cochrane, J.D. and F.J. Kelly 

1986 Low-Frequency Circulation on the Texas-Louisiana Continental Shelf. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 91:645–659.
205 

Coil, J., A. Korstanje, S. Archer and C. Hastorf. 

2003 Laboratory goals and considerations for multiple microfossil extraction in 

archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:991–1008. 

Coleman, J.M., D.B. Prior, and J.F. Lindsay 

1983 Deltaic Influences on Shelf-edge Instability Processes. Society of Economic 

Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 33, pp. 121–137. 

Coleman, J.M., H. Roberts, and W.R. Bryant 

1986 Late Quaternary Sedimentation. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin, The Geology of 

North America, vol. J, A. Salvador, general editor, pp. 325–352. Geological 

Society of America, Boulder. 

Cook, Gregory 

1997 The Readers Point Vessel: Hull Analysis of an Eighteenth-Century Merchant 

Sloop Excavated in St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica. MA Thesis, Anthropology 

Department, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Cooke, Edward W. 

1989 Sail Vessels in Authentic Early Nineteenth-Century Illustrations. Dover 

Publications, Inc, New York. 

Cow, John 

2006 [1841] Remarks on the Manner of Fitting Boats for Ships of War and Transports 

Addressed to the Officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Artillery. Adamant Media 

Corporation. 

Coysh, A.W. and R.K. Henrywood 

1982 The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery, 1780 – 1880, Volume I. 

Antique Collectors Club, Suffolk, UK. 

Craig, Alan K. 

2000 Spanish Colonial Silver Coins in the Florida Collection. University Press of 

Florida, Gainesville. 

Crisman, Kevin 

2007 In-person communication between K. Crisman, Texas A&M University and Ben 

Ford, indicating the prescence of floating frames on Ticonderoga. 

Crown Publishers 

1978 The Visual Encyclopedia of Nautical Terms Under Sail. Crown Publishers, New 

York. 
206 

Cusachs, Gasper 

1919 Lafitte, the Louisiana Pirate and Patriot. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 2(4): 

418–438. 

Davis, E.A. 

1971 Louisiana: A Narrative History. Third edition. Claitors. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Davis, John 

2003 Pewter at Colonial Williamsburg. University Press of New England, Hanover, 

NH. 

Davis, William C. 

2005 The Pirates Laffite: The Treacherous World of the Corsairs of the Gulf. Harcourt, 

Inc., Orlando, Florida. 

Deagan, Kathleen 

1987 Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads, Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida 

and the Caribbean, 1500 – 1800. Volume 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington D.C. 

Deane, John 

1858 Deanes’ Manual of the History and Science of Fire-arms. Longman, Brown, 

Green, Longman, and Roberts, London. 

Deetz, James 

1996 In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor, New York. 

De Grummond, Jane L. 

1983 Renato Beluche: Smuggler, Privateer, and Patriot, 1780–1860. Louisiana State 

University Press, Baton Rouge. 

De Grummond, Jane L. and Ronald R. Morazan 

1961 The Baratarians and the Battle of New Orleans with Biographical Sketches of the 

Veterans of the Battalion of Orleans 1814–1815. Legacy Publishing Company 

Inc., Baton Rouge. 

Depalo Jr., William A. 

1997 The Mexican National Army: 1822–1852. Texas A&M University Press, College 

Station. 

DeWolf, Helen 

2007 Email communication between H. DeWolf, Conservation Research Laboratory 

and Ben Ford, indicating the possible purpose of numbers on interior surface of 

octant (artifact no. 133). 
207 

Deyle, Steven 

2005 Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford. 

Dimbleby, G. W. 

1985 The Palynology of Archaeological Sites. Academic Press, London. 

Draper, Jo 

1984 Post-Medieval Pottery: 1650–1800. Shire Publications, Bucks, UK. 

Dubois, Laurent and John D. Garrigus 

2006 Slave Revolution in the Caribbean 1789–1804: A Brief History with Documents. 

Bedford/St. Martins, Boston. 

Dudley, William and Muchael Crawford (editors) 

1985 The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History: Volume I, 1812. Naval 

Historical Center, Washington DC. Available on-line at www.history. 

navy.mil/library/online/hurricane_1812.htm. Accessed 4 November 2007. 

Dunn, William E. 

1916 The Spanish Search for La Salle’s Colony on the Bay of Espiritu Santo, 1685–

1689. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 19(4):323–369. 

Edinburgh Advertiser, The 

1821 American Papers. 9 November 1821. 

1822 11 November 1822. 

Enright, Jefferey, Robert Gearhart II, Doug Jones, and Jenna Enright 

2006 Study to Conduct National Register of Historic Places Evaluations of Submerged 

Sites on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continetal Shelf. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2006-036. 

Erdtman, G. 

1969 Handbook of Palynology: An Introduction to the Study of Pollen Grains and 

Spores. Hafner Publishing Co., New York, NY. 

Erdtman, G. and H. Erdtman. 

1933 The Improvement of Pollen Analytic Technique. Svensk Botanisk Tidsrift.

27:347–357. 

Ericsson, Christoffer 

1975 The Instruments from Her Imperial Majesty’s Frigate Nicholas. International 

Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 4(1):65–71. 
208 

Evans, U.R. 

1963 An Introduction to Metallic Corrosion. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 

Eveleigh, David 

1997 Old Cooking Utensils. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 

Faegri, K. and J. Iversen. 

1989 Textbook of Pollen Analysis. 4th ed. Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ. 

Falconer, William 

1970 [1780] Falconer’s Marine Dictionary. Augustus M. Kelley, New York. 

Farber, Daniel 

1974 American Pewter in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Museum of Fine Arts, 

Boston, MA. 

Farrer, T.W., L. Biek, and F. Wormwell 

1953 The Role of Tannates and Phosphates in the Preservation of Ancient Iron Objects. 

Journal of Applied Chemistry 80–84. 

Faulk, O.B. 

1964 The Last Years of Spanish Texas 1778–1821. Moulton and Co., London. 

1971 Leather Jacket Soldier: Spanish Military Equipment and Institutions of the Late 

18th Century. Socio-Technical Publications, Pasadena. 

Favata Martin A. and José B. Fernández (translators) 

1993 The Account: Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca’s Relación. Arte Público Press, 

Houston. 

Faye, Stanley 

1939 Privateersmen of the Gulf and their Prizes. Louisiana Historical Quarterly

22(4):1012–1094. 

1940a Privateers of Guadaloupe and their Establishment in Barataria. Louisiana 

Historical Quarterly 23(1) 428–444. 

1940b The Great Stroke of Pierre Lafitte. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23(3):733–826 

1940c Types of Privateer Vessels, Their Armament and Flags, in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23(1):428–444. 

1941 Commodore Aury. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 24:3 (733–826). 

Fearn, Jacqueline 

1999 Domestic Bygones. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 
209 

Ferris, Neal 

1986 Buttons I Have Known. In Southwestern Ontario Archaeology, edited by William 

Fox, pp. 98–107. Occasional Publications, London Chapter, Ontario 

Archaeological Society. 

Fincham, John 

1982 A Treatise on Masting Ships and Mast Making. Conway Maritime Press, London. 

Fink, Nancy and Maryalice Ditzler 

1993 Buttons: The Collector’s Guide to Selecting, Restoring, and Enjoying New and 

Vintage Buttons. Courage Books, Philadelphia. 

Francaviglia, Richard V. 

1998 From Sail to Steam: Four Centuries of Texas Maritime History, 1500−1900. 

University of Texas Press, Austin. 

Fratantoni, P. S., T. N. Lee, G. P. Podesta, and F. Muller-Karger. 

1998 The Influence of Loop Current Perturbations on the Formation and Evolution of 

Tortugas Eddies in the Southern Strait of Florida. Journal of Geophysical. 

Research 103:24,759–24,799. 

Fuller, Claude 

1930 Springfield Shoulder Arms 1795–1865. 1930 reprint. S and S Firearms, Glendale, 

NY. 

Funkhouser, J. W. and W. R. Evitt. 

1959 Preparation Technique for Acid Insoluble Microfossils. Micropaleontology

5:369–375. 

Gardiner, Robert (editor) 

1993 Sail’s Last Century: The Merchant Sailing Ship 1830–1930. Conway Maritime 

Press, London. 

1995 The Heyday of Sail: The Merchant Sailing Ship 1650–1830. Conway Maritime 

Press, London 

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolff 

1989a Historic Shipwrecks and Magnetic Anomalies of the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 

Reevaluation of Archaeological Resource Management Zone 1. 3 volumes. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 89- 0024. 
210 

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, J. Jobling, A.R. Tripp, E.N. Weinstein, and G.A. Wolff 

1989b An Eighteenth-Century Ballast Pile Site, Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 89- 0092. 

Gathii, James Thou 

2006 Commerce, Conquest, and Wartime Confiscation. Brooklyn Journal of 

International Law 31(3):709–739. 

Gettens, R.J. 

1964 The Corrosion Products of Metal Antiquities. Smithsonian Institution Publication 

4588. Washington, DC. 

Gilly, William 

1850 Narratives of the Shipwrecks of the Royal Navy: Between 1793 and 1849. John 

W. Parker, West Strand, London. 

Goldberg, J.A. 

1976 Shipbuilding in Colonial America. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 

VA. 

Goodby, Miranda 

2007 Blocks and Cases: The Rise of Moulded Ceramics. In Creamware and Pearlware 

Re-Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger Massey, pp. 77–85. English 

Ceramic Circle, Kent, UK. 

Gorham, D. and V. M. J. Bryant. 

2001 The Role of Pollen and Phytoliths in Underwater Archaeology. International 

Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(2):299–305. 

Gorostiza, Manuel Eduardo 

1824 Manuel Eduardo Gorostiza to Michelana, 15 Aug. 15, 1824, Antonio López de 

Santa Anna, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, 2nd ed., translated by 

Carlos E. Castañeda, pp 50–51. Graphic Ideas, Austin. 

Goss, Steven 

2000 British Tea and Coffee Cups 1745–1940. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, 

UK. 

Grajales, Gloria. 

1969 Guia de documentos para la historia de Mexico en archivos ingleses. Siglo 19. 

Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. 
211 

Gray, Jonathan 

2007 Welsh Creamware. In Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by Tom 

Walford and Roger Massey, pp. 262–286. English Ceramic Circle, Kent, UK. 

Greer, Georgeanna 

1981 American Stonewares, The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer 

Publishing, Exton, PA. 

Hall, Edward 

1836a Edward Hall to Henry Smith. New Orleans, January 28, 1836 from John Jenkins 

Papers of the Texas Revolution. Vol. 4 [1973], 167–172. Presidial Press, Austin. 

1836b Edward Hall to V. Libeau. New Orleans, 30 April 1836 from John Jenkins Papers 

of the Texas Revolution. Vol. 6 [1973], 128. Presidial Press, Austin. 

Hamilton, Donny 

1999 Methods of Conserving Archaeological Material from Underwater Sites. 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/ANTH605/File0.htm. 

2007 In-person communication between D. Hamilton, Texas A&M University and Ben 

Ford indicating that possible improvements to the excavation dredge backpack. 

Hamilton, John 

2007 Email communication between J. Hamilton, Conservation Research Laboratory, 

and Ben Ford indicating that there was no appreciable difference between the 

deterioration of artifacts recovered from the Mardi Gras Shipwreck and artifacts 

he has conserved from shallower wrecks. The intactness of many of the artifacts 

was noted as an exception to this statement. 

Hanson, Jr., Charles E. 

1992 The Northwest Gun, 2nd ed. Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, NE. 

Harding, D.F. 

1997 Small Arms of the East India Company 1600–1856: Vol. 1: Catalogue of Patterns. 

Foresight Books, London. 

1999 Small Arms of the East India Company 1600–1856: Vol. 3, Ammunition and 

Performance. Foresight Books, London. 

Harter, Jim 

2003 Nautical Illustrations. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 

Havinga, A. J. 

1964 Investigation into the Differential Corrosion Susceptibility of Pollen and Spores. 

Pollen et Spores 6:621–35. 
212 

1971 An Experimental Investigation into the Decay of Pollen and Spores in Various 

Soil Types. In Sporopollenin, edited by J. Brooks, P. R. Grant, M. D. Muir, P. 

Van Gijzel and G. Shaw, pp. 446–479. Academic Press, New York. 

1984 A 20-year Experimental Investigation into the Differential Corrosion 

Susceptibility of Pollen and Spores in Various Soil Types. Pollen et Spores 

26:541–558. 

Himely and Hocquart 

1834 Nouvelle Orléans. Hand-colored lithograph by Himley, printed by Hocquart after 

ca. 1820 painting by Ambroise Louis Garnerai. The Historic New Orleans 

Collection, accession number 1940.4. 

Hinks, Stephen 

1988 A Structural and Functional Analysis of Eighteenth Century Buttons. MA Thesis, 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg. 

Hocker, Fred 

1992 The Clydesdale Plantation Vessel Project: 1992 Field Project. INA Quarterly

19(4):12–16. 

Hockley, George W. 

1841 George Hockley to David Burnet, January 4, 1841. In Koury, Michael J., Arms 

for Texas: A Study of the Weapons of the Republic of Texas. Old Army Press 

(1973) pp. 84–86, Fort Collins. 

Hoff, Arne 

1978 Dutch Firearms. Sotheby Parke Bernet Publications, London. 

Hoffmann, E.E., and S.J. Worley 

1986 An Investigation of the Circulation of the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 91:14221–14236. 

Holdaway, Minnie 

2007 The Decoration of Creamware and Pearlware of Ralph Wedgwood at the End of 

the 18th Century. In Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined edited Tom 

Walford and Roger Massey, pp. 65–76. English Ceramic Circle, Kent, UK. 

Hornsby, Peter 

1983 Pewter of the Western World 1600–1850. Schiffer Publishing, Exton, PA. 

Hughes, Elizabeth and Marion Lester 

1981 The Big Book of Buttons. Boyertown, Boyertown, PA. 

Hume, Ivor Noël 

1991 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Philadelphia. 
213 

Hunter, James William III 

2004 The Phinney Site: The Remains of an American Armed Vessel Scuttled During 

the Penobscot Expedition of 1779. International Journal of Nautical 

Archaeology 33(1):67–78. 

Hutchins, T. 

1784 An Historical Narrative and Topographical Description of Louisiana and West 

Florida. Microfilm on file at Texas A&M University, Evans Library. 

Ifland, Peter 

1998 Taking the Stars: Celestial Navigation from Argonauts to Astronauts. Mariners’ 

Museum, Newport News. 

Irigoin, Maria A. 

2003 Macroeconomic Aspects of Spanish American Independence: The Effects of 

Fiscal and Currency Fragmentation 1800s–1860s. Economic History and 

Institutions Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid. 

Irion, Jack 

2007 In-person communication between J. Irion, Minerals Management Service and 

Ben Ford indicating possible improvements to the excavation dredge backpack. 

Jackson, Jack (editor), 

2003 Almonte’s Texas: Juan N. Almonte’s 1834 Inspection, Secret Report & Role in the 

1836 Campaign. Texas State Historical Association, Austin. 

Jackson, Melvin 

1969 Privateers in Charleston 1793–1796. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Jackson, S.T. and M.E. Lyford. 

1999 Pollen Dispersal Models in Quarternary Plant Ecology: Assumptions, Parameters, 

and Prescriptions. The Botanical Review 65(1):39–75. 

Jagger, Cedric 

1988 The Artistry of the English Watch. David and Charles, London. 

Johnson, David 

1999 Kingstown Harbor Shipwreck Artifact Catalog. Institute of Maritime History, 

Cape Neddick, ME. 

2007 Email communication between D. Johnson, Institute of Maritime History and Ben 

Ford indicating the nature of the stove associated with the Kingstown Harbor 

Shipwreck. 
214 

Jones, Olive R. 

1983 London Mustard Bottles - circa 1800–1900. Historical Archaeology 17(1):69–84. 

1986 Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735–1850. National Historic Parks 

and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa. 

1991 Glass Bottle Push-ups and Pontil Marks. In Approaches to Material Culture 

Research for Historical Archaeologists, edited by George Miller, Olive Jones, 

Lester Ross, and Teresita Majewski, pp. 87–98. Society for Historical 

Archaeology, California, PA. 

Jones, Olive and E. Ann Smith 

1985 Glass of the British Military, 1755–1820. National Historic Parks and Sites 

Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa. 

Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 

1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites, National 

Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa. 

Jones, Toby 

2004 The Mica Shipwreck: Deepwater Nautical Archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico. 

MA Thesis, Anthropology Department, Texas A&M University, College Station. 

Kemp, Peter (editor) 

1976 The Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea. Oxford University Press, New York, 

NY. 

Kendall, John S. 

1925 Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico, 1816–1823. Louisiana Historical Quarterly. 

8(3):341–368. 

Kenmotsu, Nancy A. 

1990 Gunflints: A Study. Historical Archaeology 24(2):92–124. 

Ketchum, William, Jr. 

1991 American Stoneware. Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY. 

Lane, Charles 

1960 The General Biology of Teredo. Contract No. Nonr 840 (03) NR 104-271. Office 

of Naval Research, U.S. Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C. 

Lavery, Brian 

1987 The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600–1815. Naval Institute 

Press, Annapolis, MD. 
215 

Lees, James 

1984 The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625–1860. Conway Maritime 

Press, London. 

Leigh, D. 

1973 Reasons for Preservation and Methods of Conservation. In Marine Archaeology, 

edited by D.J. Blackman, pp. 203–218. Butterworths, London. 

Lotbiniere, S. de 

1983 Updating Skertchly in Sydney: B.J. Skertchly, The Manufacture of Gunflints. 

Museum Restoration Services, New York. 

1984 Gunflint Recognition. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13(3):206–

209. 

Lea, Michael 

2007 Letter to Amy Borgens. 17 September 2007. 

Lizè, Patrick 

1984 The Wreck of the Pirate Ship Speaker on Mauritius in 1702. International 

Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 13(2):121–132. 

London Times 

1816 The London Times, 12 December 1816. 

Lorraine, Dessame 

1968 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Nineteenth Century Glass. Historical Archaeology

2(1):35–44. 

Louisiana Advertiser 

1820 Loss of the Ship Resource. Louisiana Advertiser, 14 July 1820, page 2. 

1820 Shipping News. Louisiana Advertiser, 22 July 1820, page 2. 

1820 Shipping News. Louisiana Advertiser, 18 November 1820, page 3. 

Louisiana Division of Archaeology 

2007 Collection Standards. http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/Curation/ 

CollStandards.shtml. 

Ludlum, David 

1963 Early American Hurricanes: 1492–1870. American Meteorological Society, 

Boston. 
216 

Lugo-Fernández, A., D.A. Ball, M. Gravois, C. Horrell, and J.B. Irion 

2007 Analysis of the Gulf of Mexico’s Veracruz-Havana Route of La Flota de la 

Nueva España. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, 2(1): 24–47. 

Lull, Francisco F. and J. Hefter 

1964 The Spanish Louisiana Regiment in the Floridas 1779–1781. Military Collector 

and Historian: Journal of the Company of Military Historians, 16(2):79–80. 

Lusardi, Wayne 

2006 The Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Artifact Assemblage. In X Marks the Spot: The 

Archaeology of Piracy, edited by Russell Skowronek and Charles Ewen, pp. 196–

215. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Luscomb, Sally 

1967 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of Buttons. Crown Publishers, NY. 

Lyman, John 

1945 Register Tonnage and Its Measurement. The American Neptune. 5(3):223–234. 

McColloch, T. 

2004 Telephone communication between T. McColloch, Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation, and Melanie Stright, MMS Historic Preservation Officer, indicating 

that “the proposed mitigation strategy of data recovery with the goal of 

identifying and evaluating the shipwreck site is an adequate and reasonable 

mitigation strategy given the circumstances of the discovery.” 

McDermott, Brendan 

2000 English and American Shipboard Carpenters, ca. 1725–1825. MA Thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

MacGregor, David 

1980 Merchant Sailing Ships, 1775–1815: Their Design and Construction. Model and 

Allied Publications, Watford, UK. 

1984a Merchant Sailing Ships, 1815–1850. Conway Maritime Press, London. 

1984b Merchant Sailing Ships, 1850–1875. Conway Maritime Press, London. 

1988 Fast Sailing Ships, Their Design and Construction, 1775–1875. Naval Institute 

Press, Annapolis. 

McKewan, Colin 

2002 Tudor Carpenters at Sea. MA Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of 

Southampton, Southampton, UK. 
217 

McManamon, Francis P. 

1990 A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historic Period Sites. 

Historical Archaeology 24(2):14–22. 

de Maisonneuve, Bernard 

1992 Excavation of the Maidstone, a British Man-of-War Lost Off Noirmoutier in 

1747. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21(1):15–26. 

Manucy, Albert 

1949 Artillery through the Ages: A Short Illustrated History of Cannon, Emphasizing 

Types Used in America. 1985 Reprint. United States Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

Marichal, Carlos 

2001 A Forgotten Chapter of International Trade: Mexican Cochineal and the 

European Demand for American Dyes 1550–1850. Paper presented to the 

Conference on “Latin American Global Trade and International Commodity 

Chains in Historical Perspective.” Stanford University, 16–17 November 2001. 

 

Marquardt, Karl 

2003 The Global Schooner: Origins, Development, Design and Construction, 1695–

1845. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. 

Martin, R.G. and A.H. Bouma 

1978 Physiography of Gulf of Mexico. In Framework, Facies, and Oil Trapping 

Characteristics of the Upper Continental Margin, edited by A.H. Bouma, G.T.M., 

and J.M. Coleman, pp. 3–19. AAPG Studies in Geology 7. American 

Association of Professional Geographers, Washington, DC. 

Martínez, Antonio 

1817 Antonio Martínez to Joaquín de Arredonde, Sept. 3, 1817. In The Letters of 

Antonio Martinez: Last Spanish Governor of Texas 1817–1822 [1957], edited by 

Virginia H. Taylor, p. 50. Texas State Library, Austin. 

Marx, Robert 

1981 Shipwrecks in Mexican Waters. Pablo Bush Romero and Club de Exploraciones y 

Deportes Acuáticos de Mexico. 

Massey, Roger 

2007 Isleworth Creamware. In Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by 

Tom Walford and Roger Massey, pp. 254–261. English Ceramic Circle, Kent, 

UK. 

May, W.E. and Leonard Holder 

1973 A History of Marine Navigation. W.W. Norton and Company, New York. 
218 

de Mello, Ulysses Pernambucan 

1979 The Shipwreck of the Galleon Sacramento-1668 off Brazil. International Journal 

of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 8(3):211–223. 

Mendelssohn, K. 

1976 The Secret of Western Domination. Praeger Publishers, Inc., New York. 

Menzel, Sewall 

2004 Cobs, Pieces of Eight and Treasure Coins. The American Numismatic Society, 

New York. 

Mercer, Henry 

1960 Ancient Carpenter’s Tools. The Bucks County Historical Society, Doylestown, 

PA. 

Meredith, Alan and Gillian Meredith 

2000 Buttons. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 

Meuse, William A. 

1965 The Weapons of the Battle of New Orleans. The Battle of New Orleans, 150th 

Anniversary Committee of Louisiana, New Orleans. 

Michaelis, Ronald, F. 

1971 Antique Pewter of the British Isles. Dover Publications, New York, NY. 

de Michelena, J. Mariano 

1824 J. Mariano de Michelena to Mr. Secretary of State and of the Office of the War 

and Navy, Sept. 1, 1824. In La Diplomacia Mexicana, vol. 3 [1913], edited by 

Eusebio Gomez, pp.81–82. Talleres de Artes Gráficas-Granja Experimental de 

Zoquipa, 1913, Mexico. 

Miller, George 

1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics. Historical 

Archaeology 24(1):1–40. 

1991 A Revised Set of CC-Index Values for English Ceramics. Historical 

Archaeology 25(1):1–25. 

Miller, George and Silas Hurry 

1983 Ceramic Supply in an Economically Isolated Frontier Community: Portage 

County of the West Ohio Reserve, 1800–1825. Historical Archaeology 17(2):80–

92. 
219 

Miller, J. Jefferson II and Lyle Stone 

1970 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics From Fort Michilimackinac. Smithsonian Studies 

in History and Technology, Number 4. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Mississippi Messenger

1808 New Orleans Wholesale Prices Current [export]. Mississippi Messenger, 11 

February 1808. 

Moore, Simon 

1995 Table Knives and Forks. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 

1999 Spoons 1650–1930. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 

Moore, Warren, 

1967 Weapons of the American Revolution and Accoutrements. Promontory Press, 

New York. 

Morris, Jeffrey 

2007 Deep Water Archaeology. Posted on SUB-ARCH online discussion forum, 28 

October 2007. http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite. 

htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&zu=http%3A%2F%2Flists.asu.edu%2Farchives

%2Fsub-arch.html 

Morris, Roland 

1984 More Finds from Scilly Islands Wrecks. International Journal of Nautical 

Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 13(3):254–262. 

Muckelroy, K. 

1978 Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

Muller, John 

1995 [1780] A Treatise on Artillery. Scholar's Bookshelf, New York. 

Murray, John 

1980 Marine Navigation Instruments. John Murray, London. 

Museo della Specola 

2007 Online Collection, Museo della Specola. www.bo.astro.it/dip/Museum/ 

english/can_44.html. Accessed 28 October 2007. 

Nasti, Atilio 

2001 Recovery and Conservation of Navigational Instruments from the Spanish 

Troopship Salvador which Sank in 1812 in Maldonado Bay, Punta del Este, 

Uruguay. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(2):279–281. 
220 

National Maritime Museum 

2007 Online Collection, National Maritime Museum. www.nmm.ac.uk/collections 

/explore/object/cfm?ID=NAV1645. Accessed 28 October 2007. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

2006a Loop Current. www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/definitions/loop_current.html. Accessed 4 

October 2007. 

2006b Historical Hurricane Tracks. maps.scs.noaa.gov/hurricanes/. Accessed 4 

November 2007. 

National Park Service 

1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 

Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190). National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

1985 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National 

Register Bulletin 24. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Neumann, George C. 

1967 The History of Weapons of the American Revolution. Bonanza Books, New York. 

1991 Swords and Blades of the American Revolution. Rebel Publishing Company, Inc, 

Texarkana. 

2001 The Redcoat's Brown Bess. American Rifleman April:49–53, 87 

North, N.A. and C. Pearson 

1975 Alkaline Sulphite Reduction Treatment of Marine Iron. Preprints, ICOM 

Committee for Conservation, 4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 13 March 1975. 

ICOM, Paris. 

Nowlin, W.D., A.E. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, R.O. Reid, and M.K. Howard. 

2001 Deepwater Physical Oceanography Reanalysis and Synthesis of Historical 

Data. OCS Study MMS 2001-064. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

Oertling, Thomas 

1984 The History and Development of Ships’ Bilge Pumps, 1500–1840. MA Thesis, 

Anthropology Department, Texas A&M University, College Station. 
221 

Oficina de la Aguila (Mexico) 

1965 [1834] Reglamento e instruccion para los presidios que se han de formar en la linea 

de Frontera de la Nueva España. In Lancers for the King: A Study of the Frontier 

Military System of Northern New Spain, With a Translation of the Royal 

Regulations of 1772, by Sidney B. Brinckerhoff and Odie B. Faulk, 11-67. 

Phoenix: Arizona Historical Foundation. 

Oriental and Indian Office Collections (London) 

1817 E/1/253, Letter to William Griffin, Esq No. 1203, Nov. 27, 1817. In Small Arms 

of the East India Company 1600–1856, vol. 1, Procurement and Design, edited by 

D. F. Harding, p.375. Foresight Books, London. 

Orleans Gazette 

1819 Pensacola. Orleans Gazette, 18 June 1819, page 1. 

1819 Shipping News. Orleans Gazette, 3 July 1819, page 2. 

1819 New Orleans. Orleans Gazette, 6 August 1819, page 1. 

1819 The Late Hurricane. Orleans Gazette, 29 August 1819, page 1. 

Osgood, Cornelius 

1971 The Jug and Related Stoneware of Bennington. Charles E. Tuttle Company, 

Rutland, VT. 

Owsley Jr., Frank L. 

1981 Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands: The Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans 

1812–1815. 2000 Reprint. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Owsley Frank L. and Gene A. Smith 

1997 Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny 1800–1821. 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Oye, L.Y., T. Ezer, and H.C. Lee. 

2005 Loop Current, Rings and related circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: A review of 

numerical models and future challenges. In Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Observation and Models, edited by W. Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez, Geophys. 

Monograph Ser., Vol. 161, pp. 31–56. AGU, Washington, DC. 

Palmer, Arlene 

1993 Glass in Early America. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, 

DE. 

Parry, J.H. 

1959 The Establishment of the European Hegemony, 1415–1715: Trade and 

Exploration in the Age of the Renaissance. Harper and Row, New York. 
222 

Peacock, Primrose 

1996 Discovering Old Buttons. Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, UK. 

Pearson, C. 

1972 Restoration of Cannon and Other Relics from H.M.B. Endeavor. Defence 

Standards Laboratories Report 508. Department of Supply, Australian Defence 

Scientific Service, Maribyrnong, Vicotria. 

1987 Deterioration of Ceramics, Glass and Stone. In Conservation of Marine 

Archaeological Objects, edited by C. Pearson, pp. 99–104. Butterworths, 

London. 

Pearson, C.E. and P.E. Hoffman 

1995 The Last Voyage of El Nuevo Constante: The Wreck and Recovery of an 

Eighteenth Century Spanish Ship off the Louisiana Coast. Louisiana State 

University Press, Baton Rouge. 

Pearson, C.E., S.R. James, Jr., M. C. Krivor, S. D.El Darragi, L. Cunningham 

2003 Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region High 

Probability Model for Historic Shipwrecks. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

OCS Study MMS 2003-060 

Pegler, Mark 

2001 Letter to Amy Borgens, 8 June 2001. 

Pendergrast, Mark 

1999 Uncommon Grounds. Basic Books, New York. 

Pérez ,José B. 

1999 La Historia de las armas de fuego portátiles a través del la colección del Museo 

del Ejército. Ministerio de Defensa, Madrid. 

Perlmutter, M.A. 

1985 Deep Water Clastic Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, A Depositional Model. 

Geo Marine Letters 5:105–112. 

Pohl, F. 

1937 Die pollenerzeugung der windblüter. Eine vergleichende untersuchung mit 

ausblicken auf den bestäubungshaushalt tierblütiger gewächse und die 

waldgeschichtsforschung pollenanalytische. Beihefte zum Botanischen 

Centralblatt 56:365–470. 
223 

Ponzio, Carlos A. 

2006 Export Boom and the Rising Prices in Late Colonial Mexico: A Dutch Disease? 

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica, and Servicio de Administración 

Tributaria. 

Porteous, Laura L. (translator) 

1928 Contract to Build a Ship in New Orleans, 1769. Louisiana Historical Quarterly

9(4):593–597. 

1930 Marine Survey of Schooner Charlotte and Sale of Said Schooner at Auction, 

November 24, 1777. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 13(2):230–234. 

Prior, D.B. and J.M. Coleman 

1980 Sonograph Mosaics of Submarine Slope Instabilities, Mississippi River Delta. 

Marine Geology 36:3–4. 

Queensland Museum 

2007 Personal Artefacts. HMS Pandora website, Queensland Museum. 

http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/pandora/artefacts/01_artefacts.asp. Accessed 

12 October 2007. 

Regal, Philip 

1982 Pollination by wind and animals: Ecology of Geographic Patterns. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 13, pp. 497–524. 

Renner, Mary 

1987 Eighteenth-Century Merchant Ship Interiors. MA Thesis, Department of 

Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. 

Richardson, Lisa 

1991 The Compasses. INA Newsletter 18(2):16–18. 

Rodgers, Bradley and A. Corbin 

2002 Shipwrecks in a Swamp: the Burroughs Site at Edenton, N. Carolina, USA. 

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31(2):228–236. 

Roenke, Karl G. 

1978 Flat Glass: Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites 

in the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research 

Notes, Memoire No. 4, Vol. 12, No. 2, Pt. 2, Moscow, ID. 

Romans, B. 

1775 A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Facsimile and Reprint 

Series, University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 
224 

Rose, Victor 

1961 Historia of Victoria. Bookmark, Victoria, TX. 

Rosloff, Jay 

1986 The Water Street Ship: Preliminary Analysis of an Eighteenth-Century Merchant 

Ship’s Bow. MA Thesis, Anthropology Department, Texas A&M University, 

College Station. 

Ross, Lester 

1983 Archaeological Metrology: English, French, American and Canadian Systems of 

Weights and Measures for North American Historical Archaeology. National 

Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, 

ON. 

Roth, David 

2003 Louisiana Hurricane History: Early 19th Century. www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/ 

research/laerly19hu.php. Accessed 4 November 2007. 

Rothman, Adam 

2005 Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origins of the Deep South. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge. 

Rubí, B. Barceló 

1990 El Armamento Portatil Espanol (1764–1939) una labor artillera. Libros Reyes, 

Madrid. 

Russell, Carl P. 

1960 Guns on the Early Frontier: A History of Black Powder Weapons from Colonial 

Times to the Mexican War, 2nd ed. Barnes and Noble Books, New York. 

Salmon, M. 

1788 Art du Portier d’Étain. Académie des Sciences, Paris, FR. 

Salvador, A. 

1991a Origin and Development of the Gulf of Mexico Basin. In The Gulf of Mexico 

Basin, The Geology of North America, vol. J. A. Salvador, general editor pp. 

389–444. Geological Society of America, Boulder. 

1991b Introduction. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin, edited by A. Salvador, pp. 1–13. 

Geological Society of America, Boulder. 

Salvucci, Linda K. 

2006 Trade routes. http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/trade_routes 

overview.html). Accessed 2 November 2007. 
225 

Sánchez, Joseph P. 

1990 Spanish Bluecoats: the Catalonian Volunteers in Northwestern New Spain 1676–

1810. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Sanchez-Goni, M. F. 

1994 The Identification of European Upper Palaeolithic Interstadials from Cave 

Sequences. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation 

Contribution Series 19:161–181. 

Sandrik, Al and Chris Landsea 

2003 Chronological Listing of Tropical Cyclones Affecting North Florida and Coastal 

Georgia 1565–1899. www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/ history/index.html. 

Accessed 4 November 2007. 

Scharfenberger, Gerard P. 

2004 Recent Evidence for Broad Window Glass in Seventeenth- and EighteenthCentury America. Historical Archaeology 38(4):59–72. 

Scheina, Robert L. 

1987 Latin America: A Naval History 1810–1987. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. 

2003 Latin America’s Wars: The Age of Caudillo, 1791–1899. Vol. 1. Brassey’s, Inc., 

Washington D.C. 

Schmid, Randolph E. 

2007 Scientists Unearth Earliest Gun Victim in New World. 20 June 2007. Sun-Times. 

www.suntimes.com/news/nation/434805.CST-NWS-first20.article. Accessed 21 

June 2007. 

Schmidt, Oliver 

2003 Prussian Regular Infantryman 1808–15. Osprey Publishing, Oxford. 

Schoultz, Lars 

1998 Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America. 

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Shomette, Donald 

1993 The Hunt for HMS De Braak: Legend and Legacy. Carolina Academic Press, 

Durham, NC. 

Shumway, George 

1980 Rifles of Colonial America. Vol. 2. George Shumway Publisher, New York. 

Sinclair, J. 

2002 Coconuts of the Deep. Paper presented at the 2nd MIT Conference on 

Technology, Archaeology, and the Deep Sea. April 26–28, Boston. 
226 

Sivilich, Daniel M. 

1996 Analyzing Musket Balls to Interpret a Revolutionary War Site. Historical 

Archaeology 30(2):101–109. 

2005 Revolutionary War Musket Ball Typology: An Analysis of Lead Artifacts 

Excavated at Monmouth Battlefield State Park. Southern Campaigns of the 

American Revolution 2(1):7–19. 

Skertchly, Sidney B.J. 

1879 The Manufacture of Gunflints. 1984 Reprint. Museum Restoration Service, 

Alexandria Bay, NY. 

Skowronek, R. and C. Ewen (editors) 

2007 X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. University Press of Florida, 

Gainsville. 

Slatta, Richard W. and Jane Lucas De Grummond 

2003 Simón Bolívar’s Quest for Glory. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 

Smith, Gene A. 

2000 Thomas ap Catesby Jones: Commodore of Manifest Destiny. Naval Institute 

Press, Annapolis, MA. 

Smith, Gene A. (editor) 

2004 A British Eyewitness at the Battle of New Orleans: The Memoir of Royal Navy 

Admiral Robert Aitchison 1808–1827. The Historic New Orleans Collection, 

New Orleans. 

South, Stanley 

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 

Standage, Tom 

2005 A History of the World in 6 Glasses. Walker and Company, New York. 

Stanbury, Myra 

1991 Scientific Instruments from the Wreck of HMS Sirius (1790). International 

Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20(3):195–221. 

Steel, D.R. 

1982 Steel’s Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking, and Rigging. Edited by Claude Gill. 

Edward W. Sweetman, Largo, FL. 

Steffy, J. Richard 

1994 Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. Texas A&M 

University Press, College Station. 
227 

Stevens, Sarah and Margaret Ordoñez 

2005 Fashionable and Work Shoes from a Nineteenth-Century Boston Privy. 

Historical Archaeology 39(4):9–25. 

SUB-ARCH 

2007 SUB-ARCH online discussion forum. 

http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology

&zu=http%3A%2F%2Flists.asu.edu%2Farchives%2Fsub-arch.html 

Surrey, N.M. Miller 

1916 The Commerce of Louisiana During the French Regime, 1699–1763. Studies in 

History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. LXXI, No. 1, Columbia University, 

New York. 

Switzer, David S. 

1978 Provision Stowage and Galley Facilities Onboard the Revolutionary War 

Privateer, Defence. In Beneath the Waters of Time: The Proceedings of the Ninth 

Conference On Underwater Archaeology, edited by J. Barto Arnold III, pp. 39–

44. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin, TX. 

Tauber, H. 

1965 Differential Pollen Dispersion and the Interpretation of Pollen Diagrams. 

Geological Survey of Denmark. II 89:1–69. 

Taylor, E.G.R. and M.W. Richey 

1962 The Geometrical Seaman, a Book of Early Nautical Instruments. The Institute of 

Navigation, Cambridge, UK. 

Times, The (London) 

1823 Abstracts of Letters from the Agents to Lloyd’s at Havanna: Piracy. January 9, 

1823. 

Toll, Ian W. 

2006 Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy. W.W. Norton & 

Company, New York. 

Towner, Donald 

1978 Creamware. Faber and Faber, Boston, MA. 

Turlington Edgar 

1930 Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors. Columbia University Press, New York. 

Turner, A.J. 

1984 The Time Museum, Volume I: Time Measuring Instruments, Part 3. The Time 

Museum, Rockford, IL. 
228 

Turner, Ruth 

1966 A Survey and Illustrated Catalogue of the Teredinidae (Mollusca : Bivalvia). 

Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, MA. 

United States Consulate 

1906 Dispatches from United States Consuls in Matamoras 1826–1906: Vol. 1 1824. 

National Archives, National Archives and Records Service, General Services 

Administration, Washington. National Archives microfilm publications, 

microcopy no. 281. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. 

1958a Dispatches from United States Consuls in Galveston 1832–1846: Vol. 1 National 

Archives, National Archives and Records Service, General Services 

Administration, Washington. National Archives microfilm publications, 

microcopy no. 281. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. 

1958b Dispatches from United States Consuls in Galveston 1832–1846: Vol. 3 National 

Archives, National Archives and Records Service, General Services 

Administration, Washington. National Archives microfilm publications, 

microcopy no. 281. Evans Library, Texas A&M University. 

United States National Archives and Records Administration 

2001 Vessel Documents. Updated January 29, 2007. Accessed 31 October 2007. 

http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/maritime/vessel-documents. html. 

Vanhorn, Kellie 

2004 Eighteenth-Century Colonial American Merchant Ship Construction. MA Thesis, 

Anthropology Department, Texas A&M University, College Station. 

Vukovich, F. M., B. W. Crissman, M. Bushnell and W. J. King. 

1979 Some Aspects of the Gulf of Mexico Using Satellite and In-Situ Data. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 84:7749–7768. 

Vukovich, F. M. and B. W. Crissman. 

1986 Aspects of Warm Rings in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research

91:2645–2660.

Wakefield, Hugh 

1982 Nineteenth Century British Glass. Faber and Faber, London. 

Walford, Tom 

2007 The Other Newcastle: Early Creamwares of the Newcastle if the Tyne Area. In 

Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger 

Massey, pp. 86–112. English Ceramic Circle, Kent, UK. 
229 

Ward Henry G. 

1828 Mexico in 1827. Harry Colburn, London. Microfilm, Evans Library, Texas 

A&M University. 

Warren, Harris G. 

1938a The Firebrand Affair: A Forgotten Incident of the Mexican Revolution. 

Louisiana Historical Quarterly 21(1): 203–212. 

1938b Pensacola and the Filibusters. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 21(3):806–822. 

1938c The Origin of General Mina's Invasion of Mexico. Southwestern Historical 

Quarterly 42(1):1–20. 

Waselkov, G.A. and D.E. Sylvia 

1995 Final Archaeological Data Recovery at the Dog River Site, 1MB161 (ALDOT 

Project BRS-BRM-7500(10)), Mobile County, Alabama. Center for 

Archaeological Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile. 

Waselkov, G.A. and B.L. Gums 

2000 Plantation Archaeology at Rivière aux Chiens, ca. 1725–1848. University of 

South Alabama Center for Archaeological Studies Monograph 7. Report prepared 

for Alabama Department of Transportation, Mobile. 

Watson, W.N.B. 

1968 Alexander Brodie and His Fire-Hearths for Ships. The Mariner’s Mirror

54:4(409–411). 

Weast, R. C. and M. J. Astle. 

1981 CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 61st ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 

Webster, Donald 

1971 Decorated Stoneware Pottery of North America. Charles E. Tuttle Company, 

Rutland, VT. 

Weddle, R.S. 

1992 Spanish Exploration of the Texas Coast, 1519–1900. Bulletin of the Texas 

Archaeology Society 63:99–122. 

Welsh, S. and M. Inoue. 

2002 Langrangian Study of the Circulation, Transport, and Vertical Exchange in the 

Gulf of Mexico: Final report. OCS Study MMS 2002-064. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans. 

White, Stephen W. 

1975 On the Origins of Gunspalls. Historical Archaeology 9:65–73. 
230 

Wikipedia 

2007 Octant (instrument). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octant_%28instrument%29. 

Accessed 15 October 2007. 

Wilde-Ramsing, M.U, W. Angley, R.W. Lawrencem and G.J. Scofield 

1992 The Rose Hill Wreck: Historical and Archaeological Investigations of an 

Eighteenth-Century Vessel at a Colonial River Landing Near Wilmington, North 

Carolina. Underwater Archaeological Unit, Division of Archives and History, 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Kure Beach, NC. 

Wilgus, A. Curtis 

1925 Spanish American Patriot Activity along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. 1811–1822. 

Louisiana Historical Quarterly 8(2):193–215. 

Wilkinson-Latham, Robert 

1973 British Artillery on Land and Sea: 1790–1820. David & Charles, Newton Abbet. 

Winker, C.D. 

1982 Cenozoic Shelf Margins, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association 

of Geological Societies Transactions 32:427–448. 

Works Progress Administration (WPA) 

1941 Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana, Volume I (1804–

1820). Prepared by the Survey of Federal Archives in Louisiana, Division of 

Community Service Programs. T.S. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge. 

1942 Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana, Volume II (1821–

1830). Prepared by the Survey of Federal Archives in Louisiana, Division of 

Community Service Programs. T.S. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge. 

Wyman, David 

1984 Understanding the Structure of the Privateer Defence. In Underwater 

Archaeology: The Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Underwater 

Archaeology, edited by Donald Keith, p. 70. Fathom Eight, San Mario, CA. 

Yakubik, J.K. and H. Franks 

1997 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Cabildo, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Prepared by Earth Search, Inc. Submitted to the Louisiana State Museum, New 

Orleans. 

 
231

Appendices 

APPENDIX A: ARTIFACT CATALOG 

(as of 31 MARCH 2008) 
232

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

101 1 glass bottle 

broken; height = 

29.4 cm; body 

diameter = 7.75 

cm; neck diameter 

= 2.79 cm; volume 

= 800 ml 

102 1 stoneware bottle 

length = 14.9 cm; 

rim diameter = 

3.10 cm; base 

diameter = 5.9 cm 

103 1 glass bottle 

intact; height = 

29.2 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.8 cm; neck 

diameter = 2.96 

cm; volume = 700 

ml 

104 1 glass bottle 

broken; height = 

29.1 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.67 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.02 

cm; volume = 800 

ml 

105 1 glass sandglass 

NOT 

RECOVERED; 

estimated length = 

10 cm 
233

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

106 1 glass bottle base 

broken; not 

associated with 

recovered broken 

necks; body 

diameter = 8.65 cm 

(est.) 

107 1 glass bottle base 

broken; associated 

w/ 124-2 and 

124-2.1; body 

diameter = 8.45 cm 

(est.); associated 

w/ np fragment 

108 1 glass bottle 

broken w/ cork; 

height = 29.6 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.6 cm; neck 

diameter = 2.63 

cm; volume = 800 

ml 

109 1 glass bottle 

intact; height = 

29.5 cm; body 

diameter = 7.72 

cm; neck diameter 

= 2.72 cm; volume 

= 700 ml 

110-1 1 creamware soup plate 

lot 110- indicates 

two stacked plates 

with same artifact 

no.; 

chipped rim; 

diameter = 24.2 

cm; height = 3.5 

cm 
234

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

110-2 1 creamware plate 

intact; diameter = 

24.2 cm; height = 

2.5 cm 

111 1 creamware bowl 

intact; rim 

diameter = 30.5 

cm; foot diameter 

= 14.1 cm; height 

= 10.7 cm 

112 5 glass bottle 

broken (neck, base, 

3 frag.); assoc. w/ 

121 (cork); height 

= 30.08 cm (est.); 

body diameter = 

8.23 cm (est); neck 

diameter = 2.75 cm

113 1 creamware tureen lid 

intact; assoc. w/ 

212; oval widths = 

27 x 20.6 cm 

114 1 glass bottle 

intact w/ partial 

cork; 

height = 28.9 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.67 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.31 

cm; volume = 800 

ml 

115 1 creamware teapot 

intact; height at 

shoulder = 14.1 

cm; opening = 

10.2 cm 
235

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

116 1 creamware pitcher 

intact; height = 

17.5 cm; base 

diameter = 11.3 

cm; opening 

diameter with 

spout = 13.3 cm 

117 1 glass sand-glass 

length = 13.66 cm; 

max. diameter = 

6.14 cm 

118 1 glass 

condiment 

bottle 

“LONDON” Post 

1806; 

height = 14.1 cm; 

body diameter = 

4.36 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.1 cm; 

volume = 59 ml 

119 1 glass sand-glass 

length = 10.62 cm; 

max. diameter = 

3.66 cm 

120 1 glass sand-glass 

length = 14.1 cm; 

max. diameter = 

6.23 cm 

121 1 cork bottle cork 

associated w/ 112 

(bottle fragments) 

122 1 glass bottle 

intact w/ cork; 

height = 29.5 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.91 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.07 

cm; volume = 800 

ml 
236

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

123 1 glass sand-glass 

length = 9.66 cm; 

max. diameter = 

4.07 

124-1 2 glass neck and base 

broken; 

est. height = 31.5 

cm; est. body 

diameter = 8.04 

cm; neck diameter 

= 2.7 cm; volume 

= n/a 

124-2 1 glass neck 

broken neck and 

cork; length = 

16.07 cm; diameter 

= 2.57 cm; 

associated w/ base 

107 

lot 

125 

multiple 

materials 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts from lot 

125- recovered 

with dredge at 

south end of 

concretion (135); 

artifacts collected 

in the ROV dredge 

basket 

125-1 93 lead shot 

average diameter = 

1.60 cm ( .63/.64 

caliber) 

125-1.1 1 lead shot 

shot noticeably 

smaller from lot 

above; diameter = 

0.9 cm (.36 

caliber) 

125-2 3 flint gun flints 

larger two flints, 

length = 3.3 cm; 

smaller flint, 

length = 2.0 cm 
237

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

125-3 1 bone fragment 

unmodified faunal 

remain; 2.5 x 1.9 x 

1.9 cm 

125-4 19 wood fragments 

unidentified wood 

fragments; various 

sizes 

lot 

126 

multiple 

materials 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts from lot 

126- recovered 

with dredge at 

south end of 

concretion (135)(at 

a deeper depth 

than lot 125); 

artifacts collected 

in the ROV dredge 

basket 

126-1 4 flint gun flints 

flints above scale, 

length = 3.3 cm; 

flint to the left, 

length = 2.9 cm 

126-2 13 lead shot 

diameter = 1.61 cm 

(.64 caliber) 

126-3 1 glass fragment 

curved pc. of glass, 

max. length = 2.4 

cm 

127 40 copper alloy compass 

gimbal diameter = 

20 cm; compass 

bowl diameter = 

18.2 cm 
238

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

128 24 

glass, copper 

alloy, wood compass 

gimbal diameter = 

21.6 cm; compass 

bowl diameter = 

18.4 cm 

129 1 glass pane 15.1 x 9.55 cm 

130 1 creamware shaker 

intact; 10.9 cm tall; 

base width = 4.6 

cm; widest width = 

5.6 cm; and rim 

width = 3.6 cm 

131 1 

wood, copper 

alloy 

octant 

fragment 

horizon mirror; 

associated w/ 133; 

length = 9.7 cm 

132 1 glass inkpot 

4.55 cm on sides; 

3.24 cm high; 3.1 

cm circular 

opening 

133 1 

glass, copper 

alloy, wood 

octant 

fragment 

Index mirror; 

associated w/ 131; 

length = 9.4 cm; 

height = 6.5 cm; 

mirror = 5.6 x 3.4 

cm 

lot 

134 

multiple 

materials 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts from lot 

134- recovered 

with dredge on the 

west side of 

concretion (135); 

artifacts collected 

in the ROV dredge 

basket 

134-1 1 bone knife handle 

handle = 9.8 x 2.5 

cm 
239

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

134-1.1 1 bone knife handle 

handle = 5.9 x 2.2 

cm 

134-1.2 1 bone knife handle 

handle = 5.3 x 2.5 

cm 

134-2 2 stone? unknown non-descript stones 

134-3 32 flint gun flints 

flints ranging in 

length from 3.0 to 

4.0 cm; average 

dimension = 3.3 x 

2.8 x 0.7 cm 

134-3.1 7 flint gun flints 

flints with lengths 

ranging from 2.0 to 

3.0 cm; average 

dimension = 2.4 x 

1.7 x .07 cm 

134-4 4 brass 

octant 

fragments? 

possible assoc. w/ 

artifact nos. 131 

and 133 (octant 

remains) 

134-5 3 leather pieces 

unidentified 

leather 

134-6 2 bone or wood 

brush head 

and handle 

crossmend; head 

length = 4.9 cm; 

1.1 cm wide; with 

31 bristle holes; 

handle diameter = 

1.3 cm, and 5.6 cm 

long 
240

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

134-7 1 concretion mold 

134-7.1 1 concretion mold 

134-8 20 glass 

bottle 

fragments 

various sizes of 

bottle shards 

134-8.1 13 glass 

glass pane 

fragments 

various sizes of 

broken glass pane 

134-9 52 lead shot 

diameter = 1.62 to 

1.59 to 1.62 cm 

(.64 caliber) 

134-9.1 1 lead shot 

single smaller shot; 

diameter = .11 cm 

(.43 cal) 

134-10 11 wood 

Possibly 

diagnostic 

pieces 
241

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

135 1 

multiple 

materials 

stern 

concretion 

comprising of 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts from lot 

135- excavated 

from concretion 

(135) at the 

Conservation 

Research 

Laboratory (CRL) 

135-1 100 lead shot 

Sample shown = 

100 of 222; total 

will increase as 

excavation of 135 

continues; 

diameter = 1.52 to 

1.72 cm (.64 to .68 

caliber) 

135-2 1 iron shot 

removed from 

concretion; 

diameter = 8.9 cm 

(use with 6-

pounder cannon) 

135-2.1 1 iron shot 

removed from 

concretion; 

diameter = 8.1 cm 

(5-pounder) 

135-2.2 1 iron shot 

removed from 

concretion; 

7.1 cm diameter 

(3-pounder) 

135-3 5 rope rope 

removed from 

concretion 

135-4 1 wicker wicker 

removed from 

concretion 

No Image Available 

135-5 7 

coffee bean 

(Coffea sp.) coffee bean 

removed from 

concretion 
242

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

135-6 14 wood wood 

removed from 

concretion 

135-7 7 leather leather 

removed from 

concretion 

135-8 33 iron fragments 

removed from 

concretion, various 

sizes of nondescript iron 

fragments 

135-9 1 wood handle 

removed from 

stern concretion, 

 length = 11.8 cm 

135-10 1 wood box 

enclosed box 

containing 

additional artifacts; 

box removed from 

concretion 135 

135-11 4 paper paper 

removed from 

stern concretion 

135-12 1 flint gunflint 

removed from 

stern concretion; 

dimension = 3.3 x 

2.4 x .7 cm 

135-13 1 wood frame 

135-14 1 wood handle 

length = 12.3 cm; 

diameter = 1.25 cm
243

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

135-15 1 epoxy chisel 

epoxy cast made 

from void left by 

disintegrated 

artifact 

135-16 1 rope, leather parceled rope No Image Available 

135-17 1 rope, iron 

weight with 

rope attached 

135-18 1 

burlap or 

canvas 

burlap or 

canvas 

135-19 1 iron handle 

135-20 1 iron 

cast iron with 

handle 

135-21 1 bristle, wood broom head 

135-27 1 iron bar shot 

135-78 1 iron bar shot No Image Available 

136 1 copper alloy ring diameter = 5.6 cm 
244

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

137 1 copper alloy ring 

likely associated 

w/ 127 (possible 

compass cover); 

diameter = 18.9 cm

lot 

138 

multiple 

material 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts from lot 

138- recovered 

with dredge on the 

north side of 

concretion 135; 

artifacts collected 

in the ROV dredge 

basket 

138-1 1 flint gun flint 

length = 3.5 cm; 

width = 2.6 

138-2 1 leather shoe heel 

length = 5.8 cm; 

width = 6.4 cm; 

thickness = 1.1 cm 

lot 

139 

multiple 

material 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts 139-

collected with 

dredge near the 

south side of the 

gun box (artifact 

no. 207) 

139-1 4 pewter spoon 

broken, 4 pc.; bad 

condition; 

crossmend, 1 

spoon 

139-2 5 wood fragment 

utilitarian shaped 

wood fragments; 

possible gaming 

pieces; largest 

piece is 8.9 X 2.6 

X 0.3 cm 

139-3 1 leather fragment 
245

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

139-4 1 copper alloy fragment 2.7 X 0.66 cm 

140 

composit; 

wood, 

orgainics, 

glass, flint 

multiple 

artifacts 

artifacts 140-r are 

from the sediment 

matrix recovered 

with concretion 

(135); sediment 

was screened at the 

CRL; screen size = 

1⁄4 inch 

140-1 3 wood sheave 

Crossmend, 1 

sheave; pin length 

= 10.3 cm, 2.1 cm 

diameter; sheaves 

diameter = 14.5 

cm, 2 cm thick 

140-2 2 leather, rope 

loop and 

leather 

leather piece and 

leather and rope; 

parceled; length = 

64 cm; diameter of 

rope and leather = 

6 cm 

140-3 1 leather sheath No Image Available 

140-4 1 wood, rope handle 

small pieces of 

rope associate 

No Image Available 

140-5 1 rope rope No Image Available 

140-6 1 textile textile No Image Available 

140-7 1 bone bone No Image Available 

140-8 1 wood wood No Image Available 

140-9 1 glass glass No Image Available 

140-10 1012 lead shot 

sample of 270 

tested; diameter 

range from 0.9 to 

1.8 cm (.33 to .70 

caliber) 

140-12 4 flint gunflint 

larger flints w/ an 

average dimension 

= 3.3 x 2.8 x 0.7 

cm 
246

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

140-12.1 3 flint gunflint 

smaller flints w/ an 

average dimension 

= 2.4 x 1.7 x .07 

cm 

140-12.2 3 flint flint 

flint shards; length 

under 2.5 cm 

140-13 1 leather leather No Image Available 

140-16 1 

coffee bean 

(Coffea sp.) coffee bean 

141 1 wood fragment 

142 2 wood 

spar 

fragments 

section of yard; 

length = 220 cm, 

15 cm in diameter 

201 1 glass bottle 

blue, w/ cork; post 

1810; 

height = 24.4 cm; 

body diameter = 

8.96 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.48 

cm; volume = 780 

ml 

202 1 glass bottle 

w/ cork; 

height = 22.3 cm; 

body diameter = 

9.78 cm; neck 

diameter = 3.3 cm; 

volume = 800 ml 
247

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

203 1 glass bottle 

height = 29 cm; 

body diameter = 

7.6 cm; neck 

diameter = 2.75 

cm; volume = 700 

ml 

204 1 creamware soup plate 

diameter = 24.2 

cm; depth = 3.5 cm 

205 3 stoneware jug 

broken, 3 pc; 

height = 39 cm; 

maximum width = 

29 cm; base 

diameter = 16cm; 

volume = 1200 ml 

206 1 

glass, copper 

alloy, wood telescope 

T. Harris and Son, 

maker; length = 35 

cm; outside tube 

diameter = 5.82 

cm; eye-piece 

diameter = 3.4 cm 

207 n/a

wood, glass, 

copper alloy, 

iron 

weapons 

chest 

NOT 

RECOVERED; 

estimated size = 

150 x 50 cm 

208 1 glass sand-glass 

length = 9.38 cm 

max. diameter = 

4.7 cm 

209 2 leather fragments 
248

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

210 1 

wood, copper 

alloy coffee grinder 

square shape, 4.1 

cm per side; 

height = 7.9 cm; 

copper bowl 

211 1 creamware platter 

intact, 

royal pattern; 

ovoid shape = 30 x 

24.2 cm 

212 8 creamware tureen 

broken, 8 pc; 

associated w/ 113; 

oval opening = 27 

x 20.6 cm; base 

width = 18.9 cm; 

total height = 13.4 

cm 

213 1 creamware tea bowl 

intact; height = 6.5 

cm; rim diameter = 

10.5 cm; foot 

diameter = 5.6 cm 

214-1 1 creamware saucer 

chipped rim; 15.3 

cm diameter 

214-2 8 creamware saucer 

broken, 8 pc; 15.3 

cm diameter 

214-3 11 creamware saucer 

broken, 11 pc; 15.3 

cm diameter 

215-1 5 creamware tea bowl 

broken, 5 pc; 

height = 6.5 cm; 

rim diameter = 

10.5 cm; foot 

diameter = 5.6 cm 
249

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

215-2 12 creamware tea bowl 

broken, 12 pc; 

height = 6.5 cm; 

rim diameter = 

10.5 cm; foot 

diameter = 5.6 cm 

216 1 copper alloy drawer pull 

8.1 cm long and 

3.8 cm wide; 

thickness ranges 

from 0.5 to 0.9 cm 

217 1 bone knife handle 

length = 9.5 cm; 

width = 2.2 cm 

218 1 wood plane 

Iron blade reduced 

to a stain; length = 

18.8 cm; width at 

widest point = 7.6 

cm; height = 7.1 

cm 

219-1 1 creamware plate 

intact; 24.2 cm in 

diameter; 2.5 cm 

high 

219-2 1 creamware plate 

24.2 cm in 

diameter; 2.5 cm 

high 

219-3 1 creamware platter 

intact, royal 

pattern; 30 x 24.2 

cm 

220 3 wood fragments 
250

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

221 2 

brass, painted 

enameled 

iron watch face 

brass face w/ paint 

and brass bezel; 

circa 1720; face 

diameter = 4.8 cm; 

bezel = 5.3 cm 

diameter, 0.31 cm 

thick 

lot 

222 

multiple 

material 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts 222-

collected in an area 

on the south side 

of the gun box 

(artifact no. 207) 

222-1 1 creamware fragment 

222-2 2 copper alloy button 

w/ broken shank; 

button diameter = 

2.66 cm; shank 

length = .75 cm 

222-3 1 wood knife handle 

length = 5.2 cm; 

width = 1.9 to 1.5 

cm 

222-4 2 flint gun flints 

smaller flints w/ an 

average dimension 

= 2.4 x 1.7 x 0.7 

cm 

222-5 1 copper alloy fragment 

bent disk; diameter 

= 2.3 cm; possible 

association with 

navigation 

equipment 
251

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

222-6 1 wood button 

button diameter = 

1.7 cm; thickness = 

0.7 cm 

222-7 1 silver coin 

Spanish; 8 reales, 

1808; A = reverse 

with bust of 

Charles IV; B = 

obverse with royal 

coat of arms 

222-8 1 silver coin 

Spanish; 2 reales, 

date uncertain; A = 

unreadable 

reverse; B = 

obverse with royal 

coat of arms. 

222-9 1 concretion nail mold 

222-10 2 charcoal charcoal 

222-11 1 copper alloy button 

possible British 

origin; weave 

pattern with laurel 

decoration on 

obverse, button 

diameter = 2.5 cm 

222-12 1 copper alloy button 

possible British 

origin; weave 

pattern with laurel 

decoration on 

obverse, button 

diameter = 2.5 cm 

lot 

223 

multiple 

material 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts 223-

collected with 

dredge on the 

south side of the 

gun box (artifact 
252

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

no. 207) 

223-1 2 bone unknown 

223-2 1 copper alloy unknown 

maximum width = 

2.0 cm; possible 

association with 

navigation 

equipment 

223-3 1 flint pistol flint 2.4 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm 

223-4 1 copper alloy fragment 

7.7 x 2 x 0.2 cm; 

possible 

association with 

navigation 

equipment 

223-5 7 leather fragments 

223-6 1 copper alloy button 

button diameter = 

2.3 cm 

223-7 6 lead shot 

diameter = 1.51 cm 

(.60/.61 caliber) 

223-7.1 1 lead shot 

diameter = 1.62 cm 

(.64 caliber) 
253

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

223-8 5 wood fragments 

w/ lead shot 

impressions 

224 0 

textile and 

creamware 

bowl and 

cloth 

NOT 

RECOVERED 

(fell out of basket) 

lot 

225 

multiple 

material 

multiple 

objects 

artifacts 225- are 

from an excavated 

area immediately 

southeast of the 

gun box (207) 

225-1 1 concretion mold 

possible iron 

fastener; length = 

8.8 cm; 

225-2 1 copper alloy dividers 

length = 6.5 cm; 

diameter of 

circular pivot = 1.3 

cm; width of legs = 

0.4 cm 

225-3 1 metal ring 

diameter = 1.9 cm; 

thickness = 0.1 cm 

225-4 2 flint gunflints 

larger flints w/ an 

average dimension 

= 3.3 x 2.8 x 0.7 

cm 
254

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

225-4.1 2 flint gunflints 

smaller flints w/ an 

average dimension 

= 2.4 x 1.7 x .07 

cm 

225-5 4 wood fragments 

225-6 1 rope rope fragment 

length = 3.9 cm; 

diameter = 0.7 cm 

(made of two 0.3 

cm strings) 

225-7 1 bone knife handle 

length = 9.3 cm; 

width = 2.5 cm 

225-8 3 leather, wood fragments 2 leather, 1 rope 

225-9 1 copper alloy button 

button diameter = 

2.2 cm; reverse 

undecorated, 

obverse decorated 

with flower 

bouquet 
255

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

225-9.1 1 copper alloy button 

button diameter = 

2.5 cm; possible 

cone shank 

225-9.2 1 copper alloy button 

diameter = 2.5 cm; 

shank = .66 cm 

225-10 1 lead shot 

diameter = 1.63 cm 

(.64/.65 caliber) 

225-10.1 3 lead shot 

diameter = 1.5 cm 

(.60 caliber) 

225-10.2 7 lead birdshot 

range in diameter 

from .39 to .42 cm 

225-11 3 leather fragments 

226-1 451 lead bird shot 

range in diameter 

from .21 to .42 cm 
256

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

226-2 1 

metal 

(appears to be 

iron) can 

length = 15.2 cm; 

width = 10.2 cm 

227 1 glass bottle 

height = 26.5 cm; 

body diameter = 

8.02 cm; neck 

diameter = 2.74 

cm; volume = 600 

ml 

228-1 1 pewter spoons 

makers mark: 

“FABREGUET

TE / JEUNE A 

BORDX”; length 

= 22.3 cm; ovoid 

bowl = 7.8 x 

4.1cm

228-2 1 pewter spoon 

“FABREGUETT

E / JEUNE A 

BORDX” plus 

asterisk “X” and 

“BDF”; length = 

22.3 cm; ovoid 

bowl = 7.8 x 

4.1cm

229 1 brass butt plate 

Germanic – Dutch 

origin; makers 

mark ‘N’ on butt; 

length of butt = 

11.10 cm; length 

of tang = 14.64 cm 
257

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

230-1 1 copper alloy buttons 

Orange treble gilt; 

button diameter = 

2.4 cm 

230-2 1 copper alloy buttons 

Orange treble gilt; 

button diameter = 

2.4 cm 

300 1 stoneware jug 

intact; height = 37 

cm; maximum 

width = 23.5 cm; 

base diameter = 

15.3 cm; volume = 

9250 ml; inscribed 

w/ ‘4’ on shoulder 

301 2 lead sheeting 

larger lead sheet 

approx. 85 x 80 cm 

302 14 iron stove 

broken, 14 pc; 

rectangular 

dimensions = 49 x 

68 cm; max. height 

= 57.6 cm 

400 1 iron 

cannon 

(associated 

artifacts are 

sub lot 400-#) 

British, 1797; 6-

pounder; cannon 

length = 137.16 

cm; diameter 

ranges from 18.35 

to 32.10 cm; bore 

diameter = 9.47 cm

400-1 1 wood gun carriage 

carriage cheek; 

black walnut; 52.7 

x 29.1 cm; 

thickness approx. 

9.88 cm 

No Image Available 

400-2 1 wood gun carriage 

capsquare; black 

walnut; 29.0 x 

16.36 cm 

No Image Available 

400-3 1 rope, leather parceled rope No Image Available 
258

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

400-4 1 wood tampion removed from bore No Image Available 

400-5 1 rope rope 

removed from 

bore; length = 61.0 

cm; diameter = 

0.88 cm(comprised 

of 3 strands, each 

0.45 cm) 

No Image Available 

400-6 1 rope rope 

removed from 

touch hole 

No Image Available 

400-7 1 leather fragment 

400-8 1 leather 

loop and 

leather 

from cannon 

cascabel 

400-9 1 flint gunflint 

crude bifacial flint; 

dimensions = 1.6 x 

1.3 x 0.7 cm 

400-10 1 wood truck 

400-11 1 textile textile sample No Image Available 

400-12 1 rope rope sample No Image Available 

400-13 1 leather leather sample No Image Available 

400-14 1 bone bone sample No Image Available 

400-15 1 wood wood sample No Image Available 

400-16 1 glass glass sample No Image Available 
259

Number Quantity Material Object Notes Image 

600 2 concretion barstock? squared ends 

601 1 leather loop 

leather sheave for 

parceled rope; 

length = 61 cm; 

4.1 cm 

NP 1 glass fragment 

01 1 ceramic bowl 

removed 

August 2004 

02 1 ceramic pôt de crème

removed 

August 2004 

03 1 

presumed 

wood, copper 

alloy octant 

unsupervised 

removal from site, 

October 2004 – 

artifact missing 

and is not in 

collection (drawing)
APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOMOSAIC, PRE-DISTURBANCE

263
MARDI GRAS SHIPWRECK SITE

May 2007

264

Pre-Disturbance Mosaic
APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOMOSAIC, AFTER BACKFILLING 

265
MARDI GRAS SHIPWRECK SITE

June 2007

266

Post-Disturbance Mosaic
APPENDIX D: SITE PLAN

267
MARDI GRAS SHIPWRECK SITE

268

Site Plan
APPENDIX E: POLLEN COUNTS 

269
TAMU # MARDIGRAS # LETTER/SPLIT SAMPLE MATERIAL/OBJECT

1 101 Glass/Bottle

2 108 Glass/Bottle

3 114 Glass/Bottle (with partial cork)

4 140 From bucket/ surrounding the encrustacean

4a 140 From bucket from piece of wood

5 109 A Encrustacean inside bottle

6 109 B Bottle Cork in bottle prior to decanting

7 103 A Bottle Cork in bottle prior to decanting

8 122 A Bottle with cork in place

9 201 A Corked bottle contents

10 202 Corked bottle prior to decanting

11 227 Bottle no cork

12 203 A Bottle Cork still in neck prior to decanting

13 119 A Hour Glass (Lead present)

13 119 B Hour Glass (Lead present)

14 120 Hour Glass (Lead present)

15 123 Hour Glass (Lead present) 

16 208 Hour Glass (Lead present) (piece of wood, red paint)

17 104 Hour Glass (Lead present)

18 103 Initial draw/ Bottle

19 103 Cork

20 122 Initial draw/ Bottle

21 140 Rope sample

22 201 Initial draw/ Bottle

23 203 Initial draw/ Bottle

24 Core A1 500' off site 26.5 cm long/ radius 5 cm at 7 cm from top

25 Core A2 500' off site 26.5 cm long/ radius 5 cm at 18 cm from top

26 Core B1 On site - No context*

27 Core B2 On site - No context*+

28 Core B3 On site - No context*

29 Core B4 On site - No context*

30 117 Hourglass (Lead present)

*note - core B seemed to have 4 distinct stratigraphies

1.) 1-6 cm 

2.) 6-11.5 cm + B2 sediments much lighter after HF/ light brown see photo

3.) 11.5-15 cm, and 4.) 18.5 cm

270
101 TAMU 1 Relative Frequency Glass/Bottle Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/10ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 0.5% 1 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae Artemisia 0.5% 1 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 3.7% 7 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.5% 1 Alder AP

TCT 0.5% 1 - AP

Cyperaceae 1.1% 2 Sedge Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 6.3% 12 Oak AP

Indeterminant 5.8% 11 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 1.1% 2 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 1.1% 2 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 4.7% 9 Fir AP

Pinaceae Picea 0.5% 1 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 57.4% 109 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. mertensiana 10.5% 20 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 3.7% 7 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf. Cerealia 0.5% 1 Possible Cultigen NAP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.1% 2 Elm AP

Vitaceae Vitis 0.5% 1 Grape NAP

Total 190

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 102

Concentration

Value grains/ml 2515

Relative Frequencies of Pollen Found in Sample

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae Artemisia

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

TCT

Cyperaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Myricaceae Myrica

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Picea

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. mertensiana

Poaceae

Poaceae cf. Cerealia

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Vitaceae Vitis

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

271
108 TAMU 2 Relative Frequency Glass/Bottle Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/16ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 0.8% 2 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 4.1% 10 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 0.4% 1 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.8% 2 Alder AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 1.6% 4 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 2.9% 7 Cypress Family AP

Ephedraceae Ephedra cf. torreyana 0.4% 1 Ephedra/Ma huang NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 6.9% 17 Oak AP

Indeterminant 9.8% 24 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 0.8% 2 Hickory AP

Myrtaceae 0.4% 1 Myrtle Family AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.4% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 0.8% 2 Fir AP

Pinaceae Picea 0.8% 2 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 58.4% 143 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga 0.4% 1 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 1.2% 3 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf Cerealia 0.8% 2 Poss. Cultigen NAP

Salicaceae Populus 3.3% 8 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Unknown 4.5% 11 - -

Vitaceae Vitis 0.4% 1 Grape NAP

Total 100.0% 245

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 75

Concentration

Value grains/ml 2,756

Relative Frequencies of Pollen Types Found in Sample

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae Low Spine

Asteraceae High Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Ephedraceae Ephedra cf. tor...

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Carya

Myrtaceae

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Picea

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga

Poaceae

Poaceae cf Cerealia

Salicaceae Populus

Unknown

Vitaceae Vitis

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

272
114 TAMU 3 Relative Frequency Glass Bottle w/ partial cork Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/10ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 6.7% 5 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.3% 1 Alder AP

Fagaceae Quercus 20.0% 15 Oak NAP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 2.7% 2 Sweet Gum AP

Indeterminant 6.7% 5 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 1.3% 1 Hickory AP

Myricaceae Myrica 2.7% 2 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 1.3% 1 Tupelo AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 1.3% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Pinus 40.0% 30 Pine AP

Poaceae 4.0% 3 Grass NAP

Salicaceae Salix 1.3% 1 Willow AP

Typhaceae Typha 4.0% 3 Cattail NAP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.3% 1 Elm NAP

Unknown 4.0% 3 - -

Vitaceae Vitis 1.3% 1 Grape NAP

Total Pollen 100.0% 75 AP

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 79

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 1,282

Relative Frequencies of Pollen Types Found in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Carya

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Salicaceae Salix

Typhaceae Typha

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown 

Vitaceae Vitis

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

273
140 TAMU 4 Re la tive Fre que ncy From la rge e ncrusta ce a n Com m on Na m e (s) Arbore a l (AP )/Nona rbore a l(NAP)

2 Ta ble t/40 m l

Asteraceae High Spine 1.0% 2 Com positeFam ily/m ostly weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 2.0% 4 Com positeFam ily/m ostly weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 3.5% 7 Alder NAP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 1.0% 2 Hop Hornbeam /A m eric an Hornbeam ,Ironwood A P

Chenopodiaceae/A m aranthus 4.0% 8 G oos efoot Fam ily /A m aranth NAP

TCT 3.5% 7 Cypress Fam ily A P

Fabaceae cf Castanea 0.5% 1 Chestnut A P

Fagaceae Quercus 7.5% 15 Oak A P

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 2.5% 5 Sweet Gum A P

Indeterm inant 12.4% 25 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 3.5% 7 Hickory A P

M yricaceae Myrica 4.0% 8 W ax M yrtle/B ayberry A P

M yrtaceae 0.5% 1 M yrtle Fam ily A P

Pinaceae Abies 0.5% 1 Fir A P

Pinaceae Pinus 43.3% 87 Pine A P

Poaceae 4.5% 9 Grass NAP

Unknown 6.0% 12 - -

Tota l 100.0% 201

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 87

Conce ntra tion 

V a lue gra ins/m l 1,559

Relative Frequencies of Pollen Found in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Pollen Types

274
140 TAMU 4A Relative Frequency From large encrustacean Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/12 ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 4% 3 Composite/usually weeds NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 9% 7 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 1% 1 Sweet Gum NAP

Indeterminant 16% 12 - -

Pinaceae Pinus 66% 49 Pine AP

Unknown 3% 2 - -

Total 100% 74

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 29

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 2,871

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminant

Pinaceae Pinus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

109A TAMU 5 Relative Frequency Encrustacean in bottle Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/5ml

Fagaceae Quercus 43% 3 Oak AP

Pinaceae Pinus 43% 3 Pine AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 14% 1 Elm NAP

Total 100% 7

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 42

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 450

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Fagaceae Quercus Pinaceae Pinus Ulmaceae Ulmus

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

275
109B TAMU 6 Relative Frequency Cork in bottle before decanting Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3 ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 3.7% 1 Composite/usually weeds NAP

Cupressaceae Juniperus 3.7% 1 Juniper AP

Ericaceae 3.7% 1 Heath Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 18.5% 5 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 3.7% 1 Sweet Gum AP

Indeterminate 7.4% 2 -

Juglandaceae Juglans 7.4% 2 Walnut/Hickory AP

Pinaceae Pinus 25.9% 7 Pine AP

Poaceae 3.7% 1 Grass Family NAP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 14.8% 4 Elm AP

Unknown 7.4% 2 -

Total 100.0% 27

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 134 NAP

Concentration Value NAP

Value grains/ml 907

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Cupressaceae Juniperus

Ericaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminate

Juglandaceae Juglans

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

276
103A TAMU 7 Relative Frequency Cork in bottle before dec. Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 0.8% 1 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae Artemisia 0.8% 1 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae Low spine 5.3% 7 Composites/mostly weeds NAP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 0.8% 1 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 1.5% 2 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Cupressaceae Juniperus 0.8% 1 Juniper AP

Fagaceae Quercus 13.0% 17 Oak AP

Indeterminate 3.1% 4 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 0.8% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa (cf aquatica) 1.5% 2 Tupelo AP

Pinaceae Abies 2.3% 3 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 38.9% 51 Pine AP

Poaceae 26.0% 34 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 0.8% 1 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 0.8% 1 Willow AP

Unknown 3.1% 4 - -

Total 100.0% 131

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 129

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 4,570

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae Artemisia

Asteraceae Low spine

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

Cupressaceae Juniperus

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminate

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa (cf aquatica)

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

277
122A TAMU 8 Relative Frequency Bottle with cork in place Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/4ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 16.0% 8 Composites/mostly weeds NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 12.0% 6 Oak AP

Indeterminant 16.0% 8 - NAP

Myricaceae Myrica 2.0% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 4.0% 2 Tupelo AP

Pinaceae Pinus 14.0% 7 Pine AP

Poaceae 4.0% 2 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae cf Salix 4.0% 2 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 16.0% 8 Elm AP

Unknown 12.0% 6 - AP

Total 100.0% 50

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 246

Concentration Value grains/ml 686 NAP

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Salicaceae cf Salix

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

278
201A TAMU 9 Relative Frequency Corked Bottle Contents

1 Tablet/4ml

Unknown 100% 1

Total 1

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 79

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 427

202 TAMU 10 Relative Frequency Corked Bottle Prior to Decanting Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/3 ml

Indeterminant 0.28% 2 -

Fagaceae Quercus 0.28% 2 Oak AP

Total 0.56% 4

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 3.47% 25

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 720

227 TAMU 11 Relative Frequency Bottle no cork Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/2 ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 5.0% 1 Composites/mostly weeds NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 5.0% 1 Oak AP

Indeterminant 30.0% 6 - -

Oleaceae Fraxinus 5.0% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 20.0% 4 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 25.0% 5 Pine AP

Poaceae 5.0% 1 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf. Cerealia 5.0% 1 Possible Cultigen NAP

Total 100.0% 20

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 122

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 1,107

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae AbiesPinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Poaceae cf. Cerealia

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

279
119 TAMU 13A Relative Frequency Hour Glass (lead present) Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/25ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 5.88% 12 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 0.49% 1 Composites/mostly weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 4.41% 9 Composites/mostly weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.47% 3 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 0.98% 2 Birch AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 0.98% 2 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 3.43% 7 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus 0.49% 1 Greasewood AP

TCT 1.96% 4 Cypress Family NAP

Cupressaceae Juniperus 0.98% 2 Juniperus AP

Cyperaceae 2.45% 5 Sedge Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 2.94% 6 Oak AP

Juglandaceae Carya 0.49% 1 Hickory AP

Juglanceae Momipites 0.98% 2 Walnut Family/Eocene pollen AP

Indeterminate 7.35% 15 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 0.98% 2 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 1.47% 3 Tupelo AP

Pinaceae Abies 2.94% 6 Fir AP

Pinaceae Picea 1.47% 3 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 44.12% 90 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga 0.98% 2 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 3.43% 7 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 0.49% 1 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 2.94% 6 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.98% 2 Hackberry AP

Vitaceae Vitis 0.49% 1 Grape NAP

Unknown 4.41% 9 - -

Total 100.00% 204

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 25

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 4,406

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae High Spine

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Betula

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus

TCT

Cupressaceae Juniperus

Cyperaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Juglandaceae Carya

Juglanceae Momipites

Indeterminate

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Picea

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga

Poaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Ulmaceae Celtis

Vitaceae Vitis

Unknown 

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

280
119 TAMU 13B Relative Frequency Hour Glass (Lead present) Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1tablet/10ml

Aceraceae cf Acer 0.5% 1 Maple AP

Aquifoliaceae Ilex 0.5% 1 winterberry, black alder, coralberry AP

Asteraceae Ambrosia 4.9% 10 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 1.5% 3 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 3.9% 8 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 2.5% 5 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 0.5% 1 Birch AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 0.5% 1 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus 0.5% 1 Greasewood AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 5.4% 11 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 4.9% 10 Cypress Family AP

Cupressaceae Juniperus 0.5% 1 Juniper AP

Cyperaceae 1.5% 3 Sedge Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 9.3% 19 Oak AP

Indeterminate 6.9% 14 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 1.5% 3 Hickory AP

Juglandaceae Momipites 1.5% 3 Walnut Family/Eocene pollen AP

Moraceae cf Morus 0.5% 1 Mulberry NAP

Myricaceae Myrica 1.0% 2 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Myrtaceae 0.5% 1 Myrtle Family AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 0.5% 1 Tupelo AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.5% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 5.4% 11 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 24.0% 49 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf mertensiana 2.5% 5 Hemlock/Moutain Hemlock AP

Platanaceae Platanus 1.0% 2 Sycamore AP

Poaceae 3.4% 7 Grass Family NAP

Podocarpaceae Podocarpus 3.4% 7 Yew Pine/Buddhist Pine/Chinese Yew/Podocarpus AP

Rosaceae 1.5% 3 Rose Family AP

Rubiaceae Galium 1.0% 2 Bedstraw AP

Salicaceae Populus 3.4% 7 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 0.5% 1 Willow AP

Typhaceae Typha 0.5% 1 Cattail NAP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.5% 1 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.0% 2 Elm AP

Unknown 2.0% 4 - -

Vitaceae Vitis 0.5% 1 Grape NAP

Total 100.0% 204

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 79

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 3,486

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Aceraceae cf Acer

Aquifoliaceae Ilex

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae High Spine

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Betula

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Cupressaceae Juniperus

Cyperaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminate

Juglandaceae Carya

Juglandaceae Momipites

Moraceae cf Morus

Myricaceae Myrica

Myrtaceae

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf mertensiana

Platanaceae Platanus

Poaceae

Podocarpaceae Podocarpus

Rosaceae

Rubiaceae Galium

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Typhaceae Typha

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Vitaceae Vitis

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

281
120 TAMU 14 Relative Frequency Hour Glass (lead present) Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/51ml

Asteraceae Artemisia 0.9% 1 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 7.7% 9 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Betula 0.9% 1 Birch AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 1.7% 2 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Chenopoadeaceae/Amaranthus 4.3% 5 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 1.7% 2 Cypress Family AP

Cyperaceae 0.9% 1 Sedge Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 9.4% 11 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 0.9% 1 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 15.4% 18 - -

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.9% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Pinus 46.2% 54 Pine AP

Poaceae 0.9% 1 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 4.3% 5 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 1.7% 2 Willow AP

Unknown 2.6% 3 - -

Total 100.0% 117

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 67

Concentration

Value grains/ml 462

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Asteraceae Artemisia

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Betula

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carp inus

Chenopoadeaceae/Am aranthus

TCT

Cyperaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamam elidaceae Liqu idamb a

Indeterm inant

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Unknown

Pollen Types

R elative Frequency

282
123 TAMU 15 Relative Frequency Hour Glass (lead present) Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/13ml

Aceraceae Acer 1.4% 3 Maple AP

Asteraceae Ambrosia 0.9% 2 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae high spine 0.5% 1 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae low spine 4.2% 9 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.9% 2 Alder AP

Cannabaceae Cannabis 0.5% 1 Hemp NAP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 3.3% 7 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Cyperaceae 1.4% 3 Sedge Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 5.6% 12 Oak AP

Indeterminate 10.2% 22 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 0.9% 2 Hickory AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 2.3% 5 Ash AP

Pinaceae Pinus 42.8% 92 Pine AP

Poaceae 0.5% 1 Poaceae NAP

Poaceae Zea mays 0.5% 1 Corn

Polygonaceae Rumex 0.5% 1 Dock/Sorrel NAP

Rosaceae 0.5% 1 Rose Family AP

Salicaceae Populus 9.3% 20 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 0.5% 1 Willow AP

TCT 4.2% 9 Cypress Family AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 1.4% 3 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 2.8% 6 Elm AP

Unknown 4.2% 9 - -

Vitaceae Vitis 0.9% 2 Grape NAP

Total 100.0% 215

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 182

Concentration

Value grains/ml 1,227

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Aceraceae Acer

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae high spine

Asteraceae low spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Cannabaceae Cannabis

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

Cyperaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminate

Juglandaceae Carya

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Poaceae Zea mays

Polygonaceae Rumex

Rosaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

TCT

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequencies

283
208 TAMU 16 Relative FrequencyPiece of wood, red paint Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

Assoc. with Hour Glass

1 tablet/24ml

Asteraceae high spine 1.02% 5 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae low spine 4.09% 20 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.82% 4 Alder AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 1.02% 5 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 0.41% 2 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 10.63% 52 Oak AP

Indeterminate 7.16% 35 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 0.61% 3 Hickory AP

Rubiaceae Gallium 0.20% 1 Bedstraw NAP

Myricaceae Myrica 0.20% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Myrtaceae 0.20% 1 Myrtle Family AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 0.20% 1 Tupelo AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.41% 2 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 3.48% 17 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 44.99% 220 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga 3.07% 15 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 8.79% 43 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf. Ceralia 0.61% 3 Poss. Cultigen NAP

Salicaceae Populus 2.86% 14 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 1.02% 5 Willow AP

Typhaceae Typha 0.41% 2 Cattail NAP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.61% 3 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.23% 6 Elm AP

Unknown 5.32% 26 - -

Vitaceae Vitis 0.61% 3 Grape NAP

Total 100.00% 489

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 42

Concentration

Value grains/ml 6,549

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Asteraceae high spine

Asteraceae low spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaran...

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminate

Juglandaceae Carya

Rubiaceae Gallium

Myricaceae Myrica

Myrtaceae

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga

Poaceae

Poaceae cf. Ceralia

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Typhaceae Typha

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown 

Vitaceae Vitis

Pollen Types

R elative Frequency

284
104 TAMU 17 Relative Frequency Hour Glass (lead present) Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/7.5ml

Apiaceae 0.76% 2 Carrot Family NAP

Asteraceae Ambrosia 1.91% 5 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae high spine 0.76% 2 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae low spine 8.78% 23 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.53% 4 Alder AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 0.38% 1 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.76% 2 Ash AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 4.96% 13 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 1.53% 4 Cypress Family AP

Fagaceae Quercus 15.27% 40 Oak AP

Indeterminate 16.03% 42 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 0.38% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 0.76% 2 Tupelo AP

Pinaceae Abies 8.78% 23 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 16.41% 43 Pine AP

Pinaceae Picea 0.76% 2 Spruce AP

Poaceae 1.91% 5 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf. Ceralia 3.82% 10 Poss. Cultigen NAP

Salicaceae Populus 0.38% 1 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 4.96% 13 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.76% 2 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.53% 4 Elm AP

Unknown 6.87% 18 - -

Total 100.00% 262

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 22

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 21,436

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

Apiaceae

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae high spine

Asteraceae low spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminate

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Picea

Poaceae

Poaceae cf. Ceralia

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

285
103 TAMU 18 Relative Frequency

1 tablet/.5 ml 1 slide counted

No Pollen

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 97

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 0

No Pollen

103 TAMU 19 Relative Frequency CORK Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/10 ML

Anacardiaceae 0.88% 1 Cashew/Plum Family AP

Apiaceae 0.88% 1 Carrot Family NAP

Asteraceae Artemisia 2.63% 3 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 0.00% Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 5.26% 6 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.88% 1 Alder AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 1.75% 2 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 1.75% 2 Cypress Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 11.40% 13 Oak AP

Indeterminant 18.42% 21 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 0.88% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Pinaceae Picea 0.88% 1 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 45.61% 52 Pine AP

Poaceae 0.88% 1 Grass Family NAP

Poaceae cf Cerealia 0.88% 1 Poss. Cultigen NAP

Salicaceae Populus 0.88% 1 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 0.88% 1 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.88% 1 Hackberry AP

Unknown 2.63% 3 - -

VitaceaeVitis 1.75% 2 Grape NAP

Total 114

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 48

Concentration

Value grains/ml 3206

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Anacardiaceae

Apiaceae

Asteraceae Artemisia

Asteraceae High Spine

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Myricaceae Myrica

Pinaceae Picea

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Poaceae cf Cerealia

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Ulmaceae Celtis

Unknown

VitaceaeVitis

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

122 TAMU 20

no pollen

286
140 TAMU 21 Relative FrequencyRope Sample Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

~1ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 1.30% 1 Ragweed NAP

Cannibaceae Cannibis 25.97% 20 Hemp NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 2.60% 2 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 1.30% 1 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminate 10.39% 8 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 14.29% 11 Hickory AP

Pinaceae Pinus 24.68% 19 Pine AP

Poaceae 12.99% 10 Grass Family NAP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 6.49% 5 Elm AP

Total 100.00% 77

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Asteraceae AmbrosiaCannibaceae Cannibis

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidamba

Indeterm inate

Juglandaceae Carya

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Ulm aceae Ulmus

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

140 TAMU 22

no pollen

203 TAMU 23

no pollen

287
A1 TAMU 24 Core A Relative Frequency Core A off site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 tablet/3 ml 1 slide

Asteraceae Low Spine 2.4% 5 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.0% 2 Alder AP

Ephedraceae Ephedra 0.5% 1 Ephedra/Ma huang NAP

Fabaceae 0.5% 1 Legume Family AP

Fagaceae Quercus 7.2% 15 Oak AP

Indeterminant 6.3% 13 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 0.5% 1 Hickory AP

Myricaceae Myrica 0.5% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Myrtaceae 0.5% 1 Myrtle Family AP

Pinaceae Pinus 76.8% 159 Pine AP

Salicaceae cf Salix 1.4% 3 Willow AP

Unknown 2.4% 5 - -

Total 100.0% 207

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 136

Value grains/ml 6,849

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus 

Ephedraceae Ephedra

Fabaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Carya

Myricaceae Myrica

Myrtaceae 

Pinaceae Pinus

Salicaceae cf Salix

Unknown

Pollen Types 

Relative Frequency

288
A2 TAMU 25 Core A Relative Frequency Core A off site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3 ml

Alismataceae cf. Sagittaria 0.61% 1 Arrowhead NAP

Asteraceae Artemisia 0.61% 1 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 0.61% 1 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.61% 1 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 0.61% 1 Birch AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 0.61% 1 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 4.27% 7 Oak AP

Indeterminant 6.10% 10 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 0.61% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Pinaceae Pinus 84.15% 138 Pine AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 0.61% 1 Hackberry AP

Unknown 0.61% 1 - -

Total 100.00% 164

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 45

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 16,400

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Alismataceae cf. Sagittari

Asteracea e Artemisia

Asteracea e Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Be tula

Chenop odiaceae/A maranthu

Fagaceae Quercus

Indeterm inant

Myricaceae M yrica

Pinaceae Pinus

Ulm aceae Celtis

Unknown

Pollen Types

R elative F req u en cy

289
B1 Core B TAMU 26 Relative Frequency Core B on site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3 ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 4.2% 8 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 5.3% 10 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 1.1% 2 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.6% 3 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 1.1% 2 Birch AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 3.2% 6 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 4.2% 8 Cypress Family NAP

Ericaceae 1.1% 2 Heath Family NAP

Fagaceae Quercus 17.9% 34 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 0.5% 1 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 9.5% 18 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 3.2% 6 Hickory AP

Myricaceae Myrica 4.2% 8 W ax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 1.1% 2 Tupelo AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 1.1% 2 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 5.3% 10 Fir AP

Pinaceae Picea 1.6% 3 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 23.7% 45 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf mertensiana 1.1% 2 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 1.6% 3 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 2.1% 4 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 0.5% 1 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 2.1% 4 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 0.5% 1 Elm AP

Unknown 2.6% 5 - -

Total 100.0% 190

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 184

Concentration Value

Value grains/ml 4,647

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Asteraceae Ambrosia

Asteraceae Low Spine

Asteraceae High Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Betula

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Ericaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Carya

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Picea

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf merten...

Poaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types 

Relative Frequencies

290
B2 TAMU 27 Relative Frequency Core B on site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3ml

Asteraceae Ambrosia 8.2% 4 Ragweed NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 2.0% 1 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 2.0% 1 Alder AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 4.1% 2 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 2.0% 1 Cypress Family AP

Fabaceae cf Castanea 2.0% 1 American Chestnut AP

Fagaceae Quercus 20.4% 10 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 8.2% 4 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 6.1% 3 - -

Myricaceae Myrica 2.0% 1 Wax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Pinaceae Abies 8.2% 4 Fir AP

Pinaceae Picea 2.0% 1 Spruce AP

Pinaceae Pinus 2.0% 1 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. mertensiana 2.0% 1 Hemlock AP

Platanaceae cf Platanus 2.0% 1 Sycamore AP

Poaceae 2.0% 1 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 2.0% 1 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Typhaceae Typha 2.0% 1 Cattail NAP

Unknown 20.4% 10 - -

Total 100.0% 49

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 113

Concentration Value

Value grains/ml 1,951

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Asteracea e Ambrosia

Asteracea e Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Chenop odiac eae/Amara

T CT

Fabaceae cf Castan e

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamam elidacea e Liqu id. Indeterm inant

My ricaceae M yrica

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae PiceaPinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. m ert.

Platanaceae cf Platanu

Poa ceae

Salicace ae Popu lu

Typh aceae Typha

Unknown

Pollen Types

R elative F req u en cy

291
B3 TAMU 28 Relative Frequency Core B on site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3ml

Asteraceae Artemisia 0.5% 1 Wormwood NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 2.3% 5 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.8% 4 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 0.9% 2 Birch AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 0.9% 2 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

Cyperaceae 0.5% 1 Sedge Family NAP

Fabaceae 0.5% 1 Legume Family AP

Fagaceae Quercus 3.7% 8 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 1.4% 3 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 4.6% 10 - -

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.5% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Pinus 72.6% 159 Pine AP

Poaceae 2.3% 5 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Salix 0.5% 1 Willow AP

Typhaceae Typha 2.3% 5 Cattails NAP

Ulmaceae Celtis 1.4% 3 Hackberry AP

Unknown 3.7% 8 - -

Total 100.0% 219

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 178

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 5,537

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Asteraceae Artemisia

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Betula

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

Cyperaceae

Fabaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamam elidaceae Liquidamba

Indeterm inant

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Pinus

Poaceae

Salicaceae Salix

Typhaceae Typha

Ulm aceae Celtis

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

292
B4 Core B TAMU 29 Relative Frequency Core B on site Common Name(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/3 ml

Asteraceae Low Spine 1.9% 4 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 0.5% 1 Alder AP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 5.3% 11 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 2.4% 5 Cypress Family AP

Fagaceae Quercus 4.3% 9 Oak AP

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar 0.5% 1 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 14.8% 31 - -

Juglandaceae Juglans 0.5% 1 Hickory AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 1.4% 3 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 1.4% 3 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 63.6% 133 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. mertensiana 1.0% 2 Hemlock AP

Poaceae 0.5% 1 Grass Family NAP

Salicaceae Populus 1.0% 2 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 0.5% 1 Elm AP

Unknown 0.5% 1 - -

Total 100.0% 209

Lycopodium 244

Concentration 

Value grains/ml 3,855

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Betulaceae Alnus

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

TCT

Fagaceae Quercus

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Juglans

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf. mertens...

Poaceae

Salicaceae Populus

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types

Relative Frequency

293
117 TAMU 30 Relative Frequency Hour/Sand Glass Com m on Nam e(s) Arboreal (AP)/Nonarboreal(NAP)

1 Tablet/20 ml

Alismataceae cf Sagittaria 0.34% 1 Arrowhead NAP

Aquifoliaceae Ilex 0.34% 1 Holly NAP

Asteraceae High Spine 0.67% 2 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine 6.71% 20 Composites-usually weeds NAP

Asteraceae Low Spine cf Ambrosia 1.68% 5 Ragweed NAP

Betulaceae Alnus 1.01% 3 Alder AP

Betulaceae Betula 0.67% 2 Birch AP

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus 1.34% 4 Hop Hornbeam/American Hornbeam,Ironwood AP

Cannabaceae Cannabis 1.34% 4 Hemp NAP

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 4.36% 13 Goosefoot Family/Amaranth NAP

TCT 3.02% 9 Cypress Family AP

Cupressaceae Juniperus 0.67% 2 Juniper AP

Cyperaceae 0.67% 2 Sedge Family NAP

Euphorbiaceae 0.34% 1 Spurge Family NAP

Ephdraceae Ephedra 0.67% 2 Ephedra/Ma huang NAP

Fabaceae 0.34% 1 Legume Family AP

Fagaceae Quercus 11.74% 35 Oak AP

Hammamelidaceae Liquidambar 0.34% 1 Sweetgum AP

Indeterminant 5.03% 15 - -

Juglandaceae Carya 0.34% 1 Hickory AP

Juglandaceae Juglans 0.34% 1 W alnut/Hickory AP

Juglandaceae Momipites 0.34% 1 W alnut Family/Eocene pollen AP

Myricaceae Myrica 1.01% 3 W ax Myrtle/Bayberry AP

Nyssaceae Nyssa 0.67% 2 Tupelo AP

Oleaceae Fraxinus 0.34% 1 Ash AP

Pinaceae Abies 0.67% 2 Fir AP

Pinaceae Pinus 42.95% 128 Pine AP

Pinaceae Tsuga cf mertensiana 1.34% 4 Hemlock AP

Platanaceae Platunus 0.67% 2 Sycamore AP

Poaceae 0.67% 2 Grass Family NAP

Podocarpaceae cf Podocarpus 1.34% 4 Yew Pine/Buddhist Pine/Chinese Yew/Podocarpus AP

Rosaceae 0.34% 1 Rose Family AP

Rosaceae Prunus 0.34% 1 Cherry AP

Salicaceae cf Populus 2.01% 6 Poplar/Cottonwood/American Aspen AP

Salicaceae Salix 1.34% 4 Willow AP

Ulmaceae Celtis 1.34% 4 Hackberry AP

Ulmaceae Ulmus 1.01% 3 Elm AP

Unknown 1.68% 5 - -

Total 100.00% 298

Lycopodium (Marker Grains) 54

Concentration Value

Value grains/m l 3,725

Relative Frequencies of Pollen in Sample

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Asteraceae Low Spine

Asteraceae Low Spine cf Ambrosia

Betulaceae Alnus

Betulaceae Betula

Betulaceae Ostrya/Carpinus

Cannabaceae Cannabis

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus

Cupressaceae

Cupressaceae Juniperus

Cyperaceae

Euphorbiaceae

Ephdraceae Ephedra

Fabaceae

Fagaceae Quercus

Hammamelidaceae Liquidambar

Indeterminant

Juglandaceae Carya

Juglandaceae Juglans

Juglandaceae Momipites

Myricaceae Myrica

Nyssaceae Nyssa

Oleaceae Fraxinus

Pinaceae Abies

Pinaceae Pinus

Pinaceae Tsuga cf mertensiana

Platanaceae Platunus

Poaceae

Podocarpaceae cf Podocarpus

Rosaceae

Rosaceae Prunus

Salicaceae cf Populus

Salicaceae Salix

Ulmaceae Celtis

Ulmaceae Ulmus

Unknown

Pollen Types 

Relative Fequency

294
APPENDIX F: REPRESENTATIVE POLLEN TYPES

295
296
297
298
 

 

APPENDIX G: WOOD SAMPLE REPORT 

 

299
Dear Mr. Hitchcock, 

The five wood specimens you submitted for identification are as follows: 

1 -- American black walnut (Juglans nigra) 

2, 3, & 5 -- species of yellow pine, most likely a species in the southern yellow pine group 

(Pinus) 

4 -- species in the white pine group, probably eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) 

Best regards. 

Regis 

Regis B. Miller, Ph.D. 

Wood Identification & Information Specialist 

23 Mountain Ash Trail 

Madison, WI 53717-1508 

Phone: 608-833-4121 

Email: rmiller1@wisc.edu

Web: http://www.woodid.net/

300
APPENDIX H: CANNON REPORT 

301
Report No 91 (Ruth Rhynas Brown) 

6 pounder, 41⁄2 feet merchant gun cast by Clyde Company, 1797 

This is a typical gun sold for the merchant market dating from the late 18th century. The 

characteristics of these guns are their small calibre - 3, 4, or 6 pounder - and the fact that they 

are shorter than the government equivalent which would be 6 feet in length. This is a 

transition period where this market is turning to “gunnades” which bear a superficial 

resemblance to the carronade but are really a small calibre, short merchant gun in a different 

guise. The term “insurance guns” is usually reserved for the gunnade but also applies to these 

short merchant guns. However they were not merely for insurance purposes; at this period in 

the late 18th and early 19th century, merchant ships faced real dangers. The Napoleonic wars 

created chaotic times across the world’s oceans with the opposing navies, privateers and 

pirates searching for likely targets. Carrying cannon was an insurance in its own right. In 

addition these guns were also used by vulnerable communities and landowners such as those 

who lived by the sea or who felt threatened. Today they are often found in country houses, 

particularly in Ireland or along British west coasts. 

This example is similar to examples produced by other iron founders in the late 18th century 

but has two features which indicate a date after the 1780s. These are the band between the 

vent field and the trunnions is plain and flat- earlier examples were more elaborate- and the 

breech and cascable appear to be modelled on the carronade. Both these features were not 

adopted by British guns until the late 1780s. 

This is a 6 pounder weighing 8 cwt 2 quarters. It was cast by the Clyde Company and its 

serial number 2012 indicates its position on the list of Clyde’s castings. 

Left trunnion 

2012 - Serial number 

CLYDE - Name of manufacturer 

1797- Date 

Right trunnion 

6 P - Calibre of gun 

8=2=0 Weight of gun (8 hundredweights = 8 X 112 pounds + 2 quarters (2 X 28 pounds 

making 952 lbs) 

CLYDE 

This is the mark of the Clyde Company, Glasgow, Scotland. A letter from an Ordnance 

official to Thomas Edington records that his guns were marked CLYDE plus numbers (BL 8, 

12 June 1795). The Clyde Company based their method of marking their guns from that used 

by the older Carron Company. 

This company was founded near Glasgow, Lanarkshire, by Thomas Edington, formerly a 

traveller for the Carron Company and William Hood, Carron’s London agent in 1786. Within 

a short time they had two coke furnaces in blast. Edington also ran several ironworks in the 

Scottish Lowlands. In October 1793 he offered to supply the Board of Ordnance with shot 

and shell for the use of the British armed forces, and the following year he offered 12 and 18 

pounder guns. In April 1795 Eddington answered an advertisement from the Ordnance to 

302
supply 500 tons of iron guns, and after satisfactorily answering the Board’s fears over proof, 

the Clyde company were at last given orders (WO 47/2558). The first guns were delivered in 

1795. 

Edington was one of the leading ironmasters in Scotland. He co-ordinated the trade’s 

resistance to government attempts to increase the tax on iron during the French Wars (Evans, 

1993). However in about 1805 Thomas Edington left the company to set up his own 

ironworks. Clyde Company was then owned by the Caddell family and run by James Outram 

from the Derbyshire family of ironmasters. In 1810 the company passed into the ownership 

of the Dunlop family 

The Clyde works were visited by the Swedish ironmaster, Svedenstierna, on his tour of 

Britain during the Peace of Amiens in the early 1800s, when it was being managed by 

Outram. He mentioned that it was the largest iron works in Scotland after Carron. There were 

now three blast furnaces and he watched a machine which could bore four cannon at once. 

Svedenstierna was impressed by the technological advances he saw at Clyde, such as 

Outram’s device for drilling out vents more easily and his special truck to move the guns 

about. He also noted that the ‘cast iron was unusually strong and dense, but on the other hand 

so soft that it could almost be filed like wrought iron’. 

Clyde specialized in producing smaller calibre guns. From 1795 to 1796 their attempts to 

supply larger calibre guns, 18 and 32 pounders, to the British government were not very 

successful and later they stuck to supplying carronades to the Navy from 12 to 32 pounder. In 

1803 they cast carronades for delivery to Dublin and Scotland (WO 47/2576). They also 

produced shot, shell and iron carriages. As well as carronades for the government they cast 

carronades, gunnades and small calibre guns for the merchant market. 

Other examples from the CLYDE Company can be found at the Barracks, Berwick upon 

Tweed; the Army Museum in Vienna; a gunnade at Princess Royal Fortress in Australia, 

dated 1804; a 32 carronade from the wreck on the HMS Pomone lost and dated 1803 and two 

gunnades from unidentified wrecks in the Bahamas and New Jersey. 

The gun presently at Berwick, probably dated 1799- the trunnion is a little damaged- is the 

closest to this gun in that it is a short merchant gun. Interestingly Edington continued to make 

this type of cannon after he set up his own works and there is a surviving example at Culzean 

Castle on the Scottish coast by Edington, dated 1813 which is also very similar to this 

example. 

At present this is the earliest dated Clyde gun of which I have a record; the next are two guns 

of 1799. However as the markings are engraved on, they are often easy to damage, so that 

others may have survived, but at present are unrecognized. However it is certainly early in 

the Company’s history at the very least. 

303
304
APPENDIX I: DESCRIPTION OF 26 OCTOBER 2004 INCURSION 

305
At 16:19 the ROV left the pipeline and approached the Mardi Gras Shipwreck Site from 

the northwest, coming in over the anchor. The ROV then moved along the northeast side of 

the wreck, northeast of the cannon, pausing to inspect the stove, gun box, and artifacts east of 

the gun box. At 16:23 the ROV picked up an octant (position indicated on site plan) with its 

five-function manipulator. This octant appears to be similar to the instrument represented by 

the recovered octant fragments (artifact nos. 131 and 133); however, there are differences, 

including the apparent absence of shades, which indicate that the recovered fragments are not 

from this octant. After picking up the octant, the ROV backed to the northeast before flying 

over the anchors and then returning to the stern concretion from the north. During this time, 

the octant was held above and out of sight of the camera. While hovering near the stern 

concretion an unidentified object fell through the frame of vision. It is uncertain where the 

object originated, but it was likely a fragment of the octant. Still holding the octant out of 

sight, the ROV camera zoomed in on the northeast side of the stern concretion, focusing on 

the bottles (artifact nos. 104, 106, and 107), sand-clock (artifact no. 120), compasses (artifact 

nos. 127 and 128), as well as the teapot and pitcher (artifact nos. 115 and 116). While 

hovering near the teapot and pitcher (16:29), the ROV disturbed the sediment and left the 

bottom to allow the visibility to clear. The ROV pilot took this opportunity to inspect the 

octant still in the five-function manipulator. The ROV then returned to its tether 

management system (TMS) (16:37) and attempted to place the octant in a recovery basket 

(16:38). The recovery basket was an egg crate with cloth secured over the top. 

Unfortunately, the placement of the octant in the basket appeared rough and it is likely that 

the artifact was broken in the process. 

At 16:42 the ROV returned to the site, approaching from the southwest. It was noted at 

this time that the tether was draped across the cannon in a northeast/southwest direction. The 

tether was partially taken up by the TMS in attempt to disentangle it from the cannon 

resulting in the removal of an anemone and possibly a portion of the carriage from the 

cannon. The ROV then turned to inspect the cannon before realizing that the tether was once 

again across the cannon where it was abrading the carriage remains. The pilots decided to 

ignore the tether and move the ROV to the southeast. The ROV next attempted to pick up 

the blue bottle (artifact no. 201). The bottle was raised a few feet off the bottom before 

falling out of the manipulator and coming to rest near its original location (16:46). The ROV 

next moved over the gun box from the northwest. At 16:48 an attempt was made to pick up 

one of the stoneware jugs (artifact no. 205) by its handle resulting in the breaking of the 

handle but not moving the jug. The ROV then (16:49) moved to the creamware tureen 

(artifact no. 212) and attempted to lift it by its southeast edge successfully breaking the rim. 

At 16:50 the ROV moved towards the south of the site and attempted to raise a bottle 

(appears to be artifact nos. 106 and 122) that was originally situated near the northwest edge 

of the stern concretion. The ROV managed to rise several feet off the seafloor before the 

bottle was smashed in the manipulator. It was also noted at this time that artifact no. 107 was 

broken prior to the ROV incursion. At 16:52 the ROV zoomed in on the northeast compass 

(artifact no. 127) and pressed down on the compass cover with the manipulator breaking the 

glass and disturbing the compass rings. Next (16:53), the ROV attempted to lift a bottle 

(artifact no. 108) near the creamware bowl (artifact no. 111) but aborted with no damage to 

the artifact or site. Instead the ROV moved the rings on the southwest compass (artifact no. 

306
128) and brought the manipulator up under the rim of the creamware bowl (artifact no. 111), 

changing its orientation and moving it to the position where it was recorded during the data 

recovery. The ROV then (16:55) inspected the stoneware bottle (artifact no. 102) before 

backing through the site to the northwest. 

The ROV paused to inspect the blue bottle before slowly flying west through the site. It 

next paused to observe the stove and then backed to the northwest where it closely inspected 

the long timber that is the western margin of the site. Once again the ROV inspected the 

cannon, approaching it from the northwest before flying around it to the east. At 17:02 the 

ROV was over the anchors and it left the site at 17:03, returning to the pipeline at 17:04.

307
308
APPENDIX J: COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS 

309
The Historic New Orleans Collection ─ Williams Research Center 

Ph: 504-598-7171 410 Chartres St., New Orleans, LA 70130 

Fax: 504-598-7168 

PHOTO DUPLICATION REQUEST & RENTAL AGREEMENT INVOICE 

FORM 

Name: Ben Ford Date: November 21, 2007 

Firm: 

Inst. of Nautical 

Archaeology/US MMS Staff Assistant: Daniel Hammer 

Address: 

Dept. of Anthropology, 

Texas A&M Pickup Mail 

College Station, TX 

77843-4352 Email Address Bford94419@aol.com

Telephone: 401-378-3262 Fedex: 

Accession 

# 

TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Page Subtotal $ 

One-Time only usage rights granted 

for publication in on-line technical 

report through Minerals Management 

Service Order Subtotal $ 

Image must be reproduced at no 

greater than 72 dpi Postage & Handling $ 

Usage Fee(s) $ $50.00 

Not-for-Profit Federal Tax ID # INVOICE TOTAL $ $50.00

& 

Location Description 

Staff 

Use 

5x7 

B&W 

8x10 

B&W 

11x14 

B&W 

Color 

Slide 

4x5 

Loan 

SCAN Unit 

Price 

Process 

Total 

1940.4 

Nouvelle 

Orleans 

Has 

Image 

PROPOSE USE: PREPAYMENT REQUIRED 

Personal 

Research Educational 

Slide 

Show

Exhibition 

Publication X Film Video Other 

PLEASE ENCLOSE A LETTER OF INTENT INDICATING THE 

FOLLOWING: project title; author; publisher, periodical, or production company with 

address; production run; date of publication or airing. Please indicate whether for 

commercial or non-profit/educational use. 

“I have read the terms and 

conditions pertaining to photo 

reproduction privileges and I 

agree to abide by them.” Date Completed by Staff: 

Signature: 

310
 

On 18 January 2008 (14:00) Peter Hitchcock (TAMU) spoke (telephone communication) 

with Janis Jorgensen, Naval Institute Press and was granted verbal approval to reproduce 

figures from Karl Marquardt’s The Global Schooner with the understanding that these 

images were to be used in a government publication and not for profit. 

Dear Mr. Ford, 

The book in question is long out of print; we, Special Interest Model 

Books Ltd (the inheritors of the live and extant contracts and books 

published by Argus Books), no longer claim any copyright to that book’s 

contents, nor do we even have a copy in our archives. 

When this happens, the copyright to the text reverts to the author, but 

the same does not necessarily apply to the illustrations unless the author 

created or provided them in which case the history page of the book would 

state that the copyright to the illustrations also belongs to the author. 

If no copyright statement relating to the illustrations in general, or to 

this illustration in particular, appears in the book, it would be normal 

practice to assume that the publisher created them and retained the 

copyright. Since the publisher (Argus Books Ltd) is no longer in business 

and we have no way of contacting David MacGregor, then my advice would be 

that it would be safe to reproduce the illustration for the non-commercial 

purpose you have explained, on the condition that you give full credit to 

its origins. 

All the best 

Chris Lloyd 

Managing Director 

Special Interest Model Books Ltd 

www.specialinterestmodelbooks.co.uk

311
312
313
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.