Preliminary report archeological and engineering expedition, Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, August 1-26 1979

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Preliminary Report:
Archeological and Engineering Expedition
Monitor Marine Sanctuary

August 1-26, 1979

z!'@6 'rt"'
-ALI
ILI

Gordon P. Watts, Jr.
Roger W. Cook
Kenneth Morris

Edited by

Floyd Childress
Sarah Goodnight

E595 U.S. Department of Commerce
M7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
W379 Office of Coastal Zone Management
1979

Preliminary Report:
Archeological and Engineering Expedition
Monitor Marine Sanctuary

August 1-26, 1979

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

This report represents the final Cruise Report for
the 1979 underwater archeological and engineering expreditions
at the Monitor Marine Sanctuary. The report is published by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrAtion to provided
information to archeologist, historian, researchers, and others
interested in the management and protection of the U.S.S MONITOR.
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following:

Gordon P. Watts, Jr. Head Underwater Archeologist, North Carolina
Division of Archives and History.

Roger W. Cook Director of Operations. Harbor Branch Foundation,
Inc.

Kenneth Morris State Conservator, New York Division of Historic
Preservation, Peebles Island Collection Care Center.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Acknowledgments ------------------------------------- ---------------

List of Illustrations ------- ---------------------- ------------------ -

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------

Archeological report ----------------------------------------------- 2
At-sea operations -------------------------------------------------- 18
Conservation ------------------------------------------------------- 23
Summary ------------------------------------------------ 0 --------------- 26

.Appendices ---------------------------------------------------------
Inventory of artifacts -------I-------------- ------- ---- 28
Memorandum to Gordon Watts from Kenneth Morris ---------- 32

@2 V!,

LIST@`OFJLLUSTRATMN@S

Page

Figure 1 ... Datum casting locations ---------------------------------- 4

Figure 2 ... Test excavation location -------------------------------- .6
Figure 3 ... Test excavation activity -------------------------------- 7

Figure 4 Photomosaic of material exposed after excavation of
first six inches ---------------------------------------- 8

Figure 5 Artist's rendering illustrating the test ecavation in
progress ------------------------------------------------ 10

Figure 6 Recovered artifact - "Hartwell s Glass Jar Patented
(1858)11 ------------------------------------------------- 11

Figure 7 Photograph of turret's gun ports ------------------------ 14

..Figure 8 ... View of decompression chamber --------------------------- 16

INTRODUCTION

During 1978 a series of historical, engineering, and oceanographic
research contracts were'initiated by the North Carolina Division of

Archives and History to identify and collect information related to the

U.S.S. Monitor.. In addition to evaluating the present knowledge of the site,

the studies were designed.to identify additional materialthat would be essential

in the adoption of a management plan that outlines research and management

goals and objectives for the Monitor Marine Sanctuary. Based on these

studies and research needs developed in the course of preparing the

management plan, a second and more ambitious investigation of the Monitor

was planned for the summe r of 1979.

With firm commitment from Harbor Branch Foundation for support

vessels, planning for the research project began in earnest in the early

months of 1979. While the participation of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration precluded the necessity for a research permit,

the operation manual was circulated for review, comment, and approval

through the same channels established for proposals.

From August I to August 26, 1979 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration in cooperation with the Harbor Branch Foundatibn and the State

of North Carolina undertook an extensive investigation of the Marine Sanctuary.

Archeological objectives included establishing four permanent datum points

on the north side of the wreck, designing and conducting a test excavation

in the forward portion of the confines of the wreck within the hull,,and a

general examination and assessment of the site by means of diver observations

and hand held photography. Historical and engineering objectives included

additional photographic and video documentation under and inside the

wreck, an analysis of the attitude of the ship, and the recovery of wood

samples to provide insight into the condition of the vessel. Details of

the proposed work were spelled out in an extensive operations manual

prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with

assistance from the Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. and the North Carolina

Division of Archives and History.

Data generated by the research project afforded valuable insight

into the archeological and engineering problems presented by this and

other deep water archeological sites and significantly broadened the

knowledge upon which managment decisions will be made in the future.

ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT

By
Gordon Watts

In preparati on for the on-site research at the Monitor Marine Sanctuary,

archaeologists Gordon Watts and Richard Lawrence from the Underwater

Archaeology Branch of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History

and John Broadwater from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission

underwent an extensive series of physical examinations at the Duke

University Hyperb aric Medical Center and completed a ten-day training and

equipment familiarization program carried out off West End, Grand Bahama

Island, and at the Harbor Branch facilities in Linkport, Florida. The

training proved to be of benefit as it provided the first insight into the

nature and.limitations of the delivery and support systems that were to be

used in the operations. In addition, training in the submersible provided

the archaeolo gists with enough experience with the delivery and life

support systems to permit them to concentrate on accomplishing the project

objectives.

The project began on August 1, 1979, with a non- lockout reconnaissance

dive to examine the site. In the afternoon the first lockout was made to

locate a positioning harness for the baseline datum stations and jet the

first casing into the sediment adjacent to the amidships bulkhead. An

electrically powered water pump mounted on the bow of the submersible

provided water pressure sufficient to, jet the first casing into a position

identified by the harness. A leveling collar attached.to the 3 inch

casing provided the control necessary to assure a vertical orientation.

While the first and second datum casings were easily jetted into the

sediment to a depth of 5 feet, the remai ning two located forward of the

amidships bulkhead proved to be more difficult. At a depth of 3 feet an

extremely compact stratum of sediment frustrated efforts to sink casings

to the desired 5-foot depth. During'the,course of the project both of

the forward casings were dislodged by the current. While it is possible

that the stratum represents a natural formation, the discharge of calcareous

material and black oxide from the casing indicated that the layer may be

related to material associated with the Monitor (Figure I).

Following placement of the baseline casings, a reconnaissance of the

forward portions of the wreck was carried out to determine the most

app ropriate location for the test excavation. A location on the port bow

OAT UA .CAsi-4- AbCATIONS

_IP

Figure I.
- 4()f

inboard of the armor belt had been tentatively selected based upon an

analysis of photographs taken from the ALCOA SEAPROBE in 1974 and the

JOHNSON SEAL-LINK II in 1977. The reconnaissance confirmed the first

choice as the best locations for an excavation (Figure 2). With the

exception of a small area adjacent to the armor belt in the vicinity of

the pilot hou se, most of the wreck is covered by large fragments of

plating from the lower hull.

After the site for the test excavation was established, an aluminium grid

frame constrtucted by personnel from North Carolina State University was

set up to control the work, (Figure 3). Once positioned and leveled, the

frame provided a horizontal plane for measurement and photography during

the excavation. Although the frame was designed for stereo photogrammetry,

camera problems precluded stereo mapping; therefore traditional X-Y_Z

coordinate mapping was utilized. Photography was employed to enhance

mapping detail.

Initially the test excavation was carried out in a 5-foot square within

the control frame (Figure 4). Because of the presence of structural

material, it was necessary to reduce the scope of the excavation to a 2-

by 5-foot rectangle in the southern end of the origin al excavation. In

spite of additional structural material, it was possible to carry the

excavation to deck timber and planking* Removal of the sediment was

accomplished with the assistance of a hydrau lic induction dredge powered

by an electric pump mounted on the submersible. Discharge from the 3-

inch dredge was routed over the armor belt to assist in keeping the

water in the excavation area as free of sediment as possible (Figure 5).

40
dlL-

TEST EXCAVATION LOCATION

Figure 2.

410

Figure 3. Test excavation activity was documented by a
closed circuit television camera mounted on the grid
frame at the beginning of each lockout.

VV_ "M.
t 1 75 W,

@@t VA-

"Le.
SM

-A"

Figure 4. Photomosaic documentation of material exposed after
excavation of the first 6 inches of sediment.

Analysis of the strata exposed during the test excavation revealed that

the upper layer of the sediment was composed of sand and coarse shell

hash. Modern debris found at the lowest level of this stratum confirmed

that there has been considerable activity in the upper layer of sediment.

At a depth of approximately 14 inches a transitional zone was identified.

It consisted of larger shell and barnacle remains interspersed in sandy

mud. With the exception of calcareous encrustations that had formed

around the deteriorating remains of the vessel, no material associated

with the ship was found in this stratum. Below this the sediment was

composed of a very fine mud and silt that had come out bf suspension in

the water column. This stratum covered the structural remains of the

deck and contained extensive fragments of non-structural wood bulkheads,

cabinetry, and storage containers. All of the artifacts recovered during

the project associated with the MONITOR,,with the exception of a glass

"U.S.S. NAVY/MUSTARD" bottle foundon the surface of the grid area, were

found in this layer. Immediately above the deck beams and planks, frag-

ments of foul weather apparel, book binding, a ceramic soap dish, English

walnuts, and a brass thimble were recovered. Although teredo damage to
the wood was found to be extensive,.the surfaces of.deck beams and planks

were crisp and undamaged, preserving-all of the surface detail (Figure

6).

As the test excavation neared completion, attention was directed to the

examination and documentation of the remainder of the vessel in a attempt

to collect data that would answer historical, engineering, and conservation

questions. Exploration and photographs began in that portion of the ship

forward of the amidships bulkhead and proceeded.aft into the galley and

Figure 5. Artist's rendering illustrating the test excavation in progress.

-A

41@

Figure 6. "Hartwell's Glass Jar Patented 1858, Guaranteed
Air-Tight" was found to contain exceptionally well preserved
relish that still retained its aroma.
102

engineering space where the lower hull structure had not collapsed.

In addition to assessing damage to the structure of the vessel, the

investigation generated information that provided insight into a broad

spectrum of historical, architectural, engineering, and construction

details. Observations were noted by the investigators and both 35mand

low light level television cameras were used to document the wreck.

Along with inspecting the interior of the hull, examination included

inspecting the bottomdeck under the wreck and the condition of the

turret.

While assessment of the data collected during the project is continuing

some conclusions have been made. Perhaps the.most import ant concern is

the wreck as an archaeological site. While the test excavation revealed

the high energy nature of the upper stratum of bottom sediment, it also

revealed that the zone containing material and artifacts contemporary

with the vessel is preserved undisturbed. Material recovered from this

layer indicates that the preservation of material at the site is quite good.

The survival of extensive amounts of organic material confirms this In

spite of the possibility that the shipwreck was depth charged, the archaeological

record is excellent and continued systematic scientific investigation of the site

will produce a wealth of knowledge about both the MONITOR and its crew.

While the preservation of material from a salt water environment is always

complex, the MONITOR site presents no insurmountable problems short of preservation

of the vessel structure itself. Although extensive additional information will

certainly be required., it is obvious that preservat ion and restoration

of the entire ship for display is unrealistic.

A detailed examination of the structure of the MONITOR indicated that

both the iron and wood portions of the vessel have been extensively damaged
during sinking, by possible depth charging, and by deterioration. Although

a substantial portion of the vessel still supports itself, it is extremely

unlikely that there is sufficient strength to resist even the most mo dest

additional stress. The deck,.thought to be intact except for damage at

the stern, was.found to have collapsed and ruptured in three additional

locations, spilling the contents of the vessel onto the bottom. The

examination of the deck revealed that numerous plates have indeed separated

from the supporting wood deck timber and beams. At ea6h location, exposed

structural wood exhibited extensive teredo and pholed damage. The

amidships bulkhead, the only structurallinterior bulkhead, was found to

have collapsed entirely on the port side and deteriorated extensively on

the starboard side. Investigations in the stern confirmed that the

survival of portions of the lower hull aft of the amidships bulkhead was

due to the pre senceof ship's.machinery and boilers. Establishing that

the list to starboardis approximatley 20 degrees also confirmed that

both the lower hull aft and deck/armor belt structures have suffered

considerahle lateral and longitudinal distortion. The turret, because

of its exceptionally heavy construction, exhibited dents probably

associated with the engagement with the CSS VIRGINIA, in addition to

teredo, pholad, and cellular damage to the wood flooring. Access to the

interior of the structure was not possible and probing of the wood floor

produced no indication of the condition of material inside (Figure 7).

In examining the problem of conducting even limited archaeological

investigations at depths requiring sophisticated breathing gasses and

4,q

I- INk

Figure 7. Gun ports were found to'be closed by protective pendulums although
original wood coverings which were employed to make the opening water tight had
deteriorated completely.

delivery systems, it is obvious that saturation mode operations represent

a distinct advantage. Ev ery hour on the site required approximately four

and one half hours of.decompression in the chamber aboard the support ship.

This schedule automatically limited daily on-site operations to a maximum

of 2 hours. While the lengthy decompression schedule provided an abundance

of time for evaluating and assessing each dive, the schedule became

taxing both mentally and physically for the divers after the first two weeks

(Figure 8).

Working in water temperature ranging from 18 to 26 degrees Celcius in

conventional wetsuits made an endurance contest out of a number of the

lockout dives. With compression significantly reducing thermal properties

of the wetsuits and the heat loss associated with the helium oxygen

breathing mixture archaeological priorities deteriorated rapidly toward

the end of each lockout.' Working slowly and meticulously in the test

excavation also seemed to accelerate the effects of the cold. Toward
the end of the excavation it was' noted that lockout times could be extended

by utilizing the last of each dive for exploration and photography of the

wreck. Ex ertion associated with vigorous movement appeared to generate

some reserve- body heat*

Communications, always a problem at depth, were additionally complicated

by the breathing mixture. In spite of the voice unscrambler, extensive

communications proved impossible, eliminating the possibility of recording

observations verbally. While some voices can be understood with regularity,

others proved quite impossible and defied translation by the diver himself.

While the submersible delivery and support system provided adequate

lwl-, ftl@

Figure 8. Decompression schedules provided ample opportunity to record
and reflect on the activities of each lockout.

support for the limited objectives of a test. excavation, extensive work

at-that depth will require a different system. Additional power for

tools would have to be available before extensive excavations could.be

carried out with efficiency.

In spite of the problems and limitations, the project provided

archaeologists with an opportunity to bring state of the art technology

to bear on the problems of managing and investigating deep water sites.

In addition to generating a wealth of site specific information about the

MONITOR, the work has served to illustrate the possibilities for advancing

archaeological investigations into ocean depths.

AT-SEA OPERATIONS

By Roger W. Cook

JOHNSON-SEA-LINK I (J-S-L-I) conducted a total of 49 dives from August I

to August 26, 1979. Of these, 36 were lock-out dives. A lock-out dive.

is defined as pressurizing the aft compartment of the submersible to,ambined

sea pressure (utilizing either high pressure air or mixed gas) so that a

diver may exit and perform work.

At 0800 on the morning of July 31, 1979, R/V JOHNSON, transporting

J-S-L I,.departed Link Port in Fort Pierce, Florida. She arrived in the

Monitor Marine Sanctuary at 2400 Tuesday, July 31. The total distance of

560 nautical miles was covered in 40 hours, with an average speed of 14

knots. Sea conditions during the transit were 2 - 4 feet.

The U.S.S. MONITOR was immediately located and the launching of

J-S-L I foran observation and reconnaissance dive officially began the

mission on Wednesday morning, August I.. The observer in the pilot's

sphere was North Carolina underwater archaeologist, Gordon Watts. During.this

first dive,, we confirmed that the MONITOR looked basically the same as during

our 1977 mission. It was clear of any debris or nets and the planned

test excavation site appeared to be in a good location. On the following

four dives a baseline was placed along the entire length of the vessel on

the north side and four permanent datum control points were jetted into

the ocean bottom. The baseline consisted of a 1/8" stainless steel cable

that was drawn tight and.anchored to the bottom at each end of the wreck.

Markers on the cable allowed the accurate placement and positioning

and placement of the four datum points- The datum points were 3 inch

pipes measuring 10 feet in length. They were jetted into the bottom

at (50 feet) intervals with a submersible-mounted electric pump. The

pump supplied water pressure though a hose to a lock-out diver who

guided the datum points into the bottom, using a leveling device to keep

them vertical. The two datum points to the east were quickly and easily

jetted down.. The two to the west hit hard bottom about 3 feet down and

stopped. The datum points were established to assist in accurately

locating, for reference purposes, the work and observations made on the

site.

The remaining lock-out dives were mainly for excavation purposes.

By us.ing the electric pump on the submersible, with approximately 50 feet of

induction hose, the lock-out diver was able to lift light sand and debris

from the test excavation area. The excavation continued each d ay with a

lock-out dive in the morning and afternoon,. An observation dive was

usually scheduled mid-day between the two lock-out dives. With a decom-

pression period of 24 hours between dives (end of decompression to start

of pressurization), it was mandatory to have three two-man teams working

in rotation to complete two lock-out dives each day. For each lock-out

dive, consisting of sixty minutes bottom time at a working depth of 230

feet, 4.3 hours of decompression were required.

The current was usually from the southwest at about one knot;,

therefore, the R/V JOHNSON would la.unch J-S-L I slightly north of the

wreck, and the sub would touch down on the bottom about 150 to 200 yards

north of the MONITOR. A 'beaco'n mounted on the subm ersible and another

previously set at the wreck would visually display on a television

screen position of both the MONITOR and submersible on the bridge of R/V

JOHNSON. J-S-L I would approach the wreck using sonar until visual contact.

was made. The submersible was always positioned so the pilot and decompression

controller in the pilot's sphere could see the diver in the water. The

diver also took a low light T-V. camera from its mounting in front of

the submersible and attached it to a tripod at the work site. The camera

then looked directly onto the excavation area and allowed the pilot and

decompression controller to observe and videotape the excavation process.

An umbilical, connecting the diver to the submersible, consisted

of a hose for the breathing gases and a cable for communications. Only

one diver would exit J-S-L 1, while the other remained inside to monitor

systems and act as a stand-by diver. By situating the submersible

amidships of the wreck, the lock-out diver had enough umbilical to swim

along the entire wreck.

Approximately 1000*cubic feet of gas was consumed during each lock-

out dive. The breathing gas was 12% oxygen and 88% helium., Approximately

15,000 cubic feet of gas was carried onboard R/V JOHNSON. Because of

this limitation, it was necessary to leave the Monitor Sanctuary once a

week of resupply with heluim and oxygen in Morehead City, North Carolina,

where additional reserves were kept.

The weather conditions at the site were much better than we had

aniticipatede Duri ng the'entire month, only two days were lost because

the seas were too rough to safely launch an d recover J-S-L I. Visibility
ranged from zero to 150 feet with the average about 20 to 30 feet. 'During

one particular dive,.J-S-L I settled into complete darkness. At 220

feet, it was absolutely black with a current on the bottom of .1 knot

from the southwest. The dives on the previous day, however, were of

average visibility. We terminated operations that day and proceeded to

Morehead City to replenish our gas supplies. When we returned two days later,

the visibility was 100 feet and the following day, 150,feet. It was

evident that during our absence, a very strong current had swept through

the area (in excess of 1.5 knots). Our camera tripod'was lying on its

side, the two datum points to the west were uprooted and lying free to

the north,. and there was a large scour mark on the bottom where the

current had raced around the bow. These same conditions appeared once

during our 1977 mission. At that time, the pilot had reported a current

on the bottom of 1.5 knots with zero visibility. Bottom temperatures at

the site ranged from 18*C to 26*C with an average of 190 - 210C. It is

apparent that environmental conditions can change rapidly at the site.

A lock-out submersible proved to be a very effective tool for this

type of work. A high degree of mobility was required to cover the entire

wreck and this was easily achieved. The submersible was used to deploy

divers as well as videotape the divers' work and the wreck and obtain

35mm still photography of specific areas.

CONSERVATION

By
Kenneth Morris

Both during and following the August 1979 expedition, the State of

North Carolina moved to insure proper care was given the 108 artifacts re-

covered from the U.S.S. MONITOR. The services of the Division for Historic

Preservation, New York State Office of Parks and Recreation were requested

by North Carolina* Mr. Morris, a conservator for the New York Division

for Historic Preservation, was responsible for examining the artifacts and

recommending the best stabilization treatment for each.- All artifacts were

tagged, photographed and examined before being packed in stabilizing medium.

All this conservation field work was accomplished at the temporary laboratory

established in Hatteras, North Carolina. At the conclusion of the field

project the artifacts were transferred to Ft. Fisher, North Carolina, head-

quarters for the North Carolina Underwater Archeology Branch. An inventory

of the artifacts can be found in Appendix 1.

Mr. Morris continues to supervise the preservation both in Ft. Fisher

and in the New York State Division for Historic Preservation's conservation

laboratory at Peebles Islands, Waterford, New York. The transfer of artifacts

to New York was deemed appropriate because the treatment capabilities-available

at Peebles Island (necessary for the conservation procedures) were not yet

available at the Ft. Fisher facility. Additionally, New York was able to

provide the constant supervision that certain unique artifacts required due

to a more rigorous treatment which is described in the memorandum from

Kenneth Morris to Gordon Watts, found in Appendix 2.

The artifacts have been classified into three broad categories:

organic, iron and non-ferrous inorganic artifacts. Those artifacts

located in Ft. Fisher are monitored regularly and are either undergoing

very slow, easy to control processes or are simply being held stable
awaiting further treatment. The present disposition of the unstabilized

artifacts is as follows:

(1) Glass artifacts are stored in salt water. Gradually the salt

water is being exchanged for water with a lower chloride content;

(2) Large iron artifacts are undergoing electrolytic reduction to

remove the chlorides from the metal;

(3) Concretions, small iron pieces, and other metals (including

copper alloys) are being immersed in distilled water which is

heated to 90*F. This water is also changed at set intervals

so that the chloride content will be reduced;

(4) Wood and the remainder of artifacts are being kept wet. The water

in the "wood tank" is changed frequently to retard the growth

of mold or fungus; and
Cer amic artifacts were' put through a desalination process similar

that of the glass artifacts, and treatment has been completed for the

ceramics artifacts*

The conservation procedures at Ft. Fisher are on or ahead of schedule

and the estimated completion date for the majority of the artifacts is June

1980. The artifacts sent to Peebles Island, Yew York have completed their

conservation treatments,.except one wood panelling fragment, catalogue .063.

On May 21, 1980 an exhibit on the U.S.S. MONITOR opened at the U.S.

Naval Memorial Museum to celebrate the primier of NOAA's film, "Down to the

MONITOR". All the artifacts from Peebles Island, except the one wood fragment

were sent to the Naval Museum in.May and the following artifacts were sent to

the Naval Museum from Ft. Fisher: two pieces from a brass lamp base,

two pieces of a porcelain soap dish, and a fragment of a large ironstone

plate. These artifa cts are on loan to the Naval Museum for exhibition

and curation.

SUMMARY

On August 26, 1979, the project was concluded, and all objectives

were completed.

On September 27, 1979 a meeting was held in Raleigh, North Carolina

to review the expedition and discuss the accomplishments. Present at the

meeting were Mr. Roger Cook, Dr. Larry E. Tise, Mr..Brent Glass, Mr.

Gordon Watts, Mr. Richard Lawrence and Ms. Dina Hill, Mr. Kenneth Morris,
CAPT Ernest Peterkin, (Pet'.), and LT Ted Lillestolen, NOAA Corps.

At the conclusion of that meeting a statement was prepared which

included.tentative conclusions,. findings and recommendations from the

August 1979 Expedition, They are as follows:

I. Conclusions:

1-. All the primary objectives of the expedition were accomplished
within the 28-day period of the expedition.

2. A variety of artifacts and samples were recovered from the
site and from the excavation that was conducted. These objects
will be used to test the effectiveness of appropriate conservation
techniques. The conclusions reached will be used as treatment
guidelines for the spectrum of similar materials that will be
found throughout the site in the course of any further excavation.

3. The broad range of data, photographs, and videotapes that was
collected and recorded is currently available for in-depth
analysis of the wreck site.

II. Findings:

I. The Monitor is extensively disturbed by natural and hon-natural
causes. For example, the exposed areas of the ship's bottom
plating and inner support framing are severely deteriorated
and parts of the wreck.itself are scattered over a broad area.

2. The portions of the wreck covered by sediment are in better
shape than exposed portions.

3. The hulk is exposed to changing tenperatures and strong, variable
currents that alternately cover and expose parts of the wreck.

4. Excavation is conplicated by the considerable disarray of the
wreck's structural members.

5. The remains of the U.S.S MONITOR cannot be raised intact by
traditional salvage methods.

6. Pacovery of artifacts nust be well planned due to the variety
of materials present, their varied state of preservation, and
the cost of conservation.

7. In terms of the five phases of the Monitor Marine Sanctuary
Management Plan, the selection of the most appropriate option for
the ultimate disposition of the site cannot be made at this time.

III RecomTendations:

1. That an engineering study and evaluation of the site be prepared
from the available photographs, video tapes, and divers' reports
indicating what portions of the ship are present or absent,
relatively intact or scattered, and within the wreck or scattered
over a broad area;

2. Based on the recorded data and the artifacts recovered, that
conservation methodologies, techniques, and anticipated costs be
prepared for conserving various portions of the wreck;

3. That additional archeological excavations be conducted in those
areas of the wreck designated in'the Monitor Marine Sanctuary
Management Plan; and

4. That alternative delivery and support system be explored for
placing archeologists, engineers, and other professionals on the
site to conduct extended investigations.

A - p-p e' n d 'i x`
Artifact Inventory

Glass, Ceramics

001 Intact wine bottle,-dark green, no markings. 11" high.
002 Intact bottle, light green; "MUSTARD" and "US NAVY"
on opposite sides. 6" high.
007 Bottle, light green; broken; "PEPPER" and "US NAVY"
on opposite sides. 6" high.
039 Cathedral pickle bottle, light green; top broken; no
markings. 9 1/2" high, 3" wide at the front, 2" wide
.at the sides.
041 Base fragment of square bottle, dark brown; possibly
Plantation Bitters; molded design on sides; no markings.
.311 square.
.044 Two pieces of possibly three-piece soap dish, porcelain,
white; no markings. One piece has holes for straining
water; second piece, which fits under the'first, is solid.
Strainer 3 3/4" X 4 13/16"; base 3 3/16" X 4 5/8".
*079 Intact bottle, light green; "MUSTARD" and."US NAVY"
on opposite sides; cork in place. 6" high.
103 Intact bottle, light green; "MUSTARD" and "US NAVY"
on opposite sides. 6" high.
104 Intact bottle, light green; "MUSTARD" and "US NAVY"
on opposite sides. 6" high.
105 Intact bottle, light green; "MUSTARD" and "US NAVY"
on opposite sides. 6" high.
106 Storage jar with seal and lid, light green; no markings
on jar; "PATENTED OCT. 19, 1858" on top of.lid;
UHARTELLIS GLASS AIR-TIGHT COVER" around sides of lid;
top of lid decorated with 17 raised pointed beads of glass,
broken.. Jar 8 1/4" high, 4" in diameter at the base; lid 1"
high, 3 1/2" in diameter.
107 Fragment of large plate, ironstone, white; no markings,
108 Base of square bottle, light green; no markings.
2 1/2" square.

Removed to Collections Care Center, Peebles Island,
New York.

Metal, Non-ferrous

Oil Brass ring, possibly grommet. 1 3/411 in diameter.
*043 Brass lamp base; constructed of three pieces; lead balls and
leather seal in bottom section; decorative motif around first
section. Overall height 4", 5" in diameter at base.

Bottom section removed to Collections Care Center, Peebles
Isl and, New York.

Metal , Ferrous

004 Four unidentified concretions
038 Unidentified concretion
077 Unidentified concretion
078 Unidentified concretion
086 Unidentified concretion
089 Unidentified concretion
093 Unidentified concretion
098 Unidentified concretion
099 Unidentified concretion
101 Unidentified concretion
102 Unidentified concretion

Mi scel 1 aneous

003 Piece of decorative plastic, modern.
010 English walnut, infact; walnut fragments.
*014 Leather, portion of book binding.
042 Lens from Edgerton camera
*048 Rubber hose, 30 1/2"
*097 Piece of rubberized fabric
101 Round metal cap with perforations.

Wood

005 Wood fragment with brass hinge attached. Hinge 3 1/2" X
2 1/2"; 1 wood screw, 1 1/4" long.
006 Rectangular wooden block, 3 1/2" X 3/4" X 2/4" X1/3"
040 Concreted wood fragment, 11 1/4" long.
*049 Wood fragment
*050 Wood fragment
051 Wood fragment, 14" long
052 Wooden louver, 11" X 1 3/4" X 1/4"
053 Wood fragment, 3 1/4" long.
054 Wood fragment, 7" long
055 Round wooden object, possibly bung, 1 1/2" in diameter.
056 Rectangular wooden block, 3" X 1 1/2" X 1/4"
057 Wood fragment, 2" long.
058 Wood fragment, 1 1/2" long.
059 Wood fragment, 4" long.
*060 Piece of tongue and groove panelling, joins with 062,
063, and 064.
*061 Piece of tongue and groove panelling, does not join with
other four pieces.
*062 Piece of tongue and groove panelling.
*063 Piece of tongue and groove panelling.
*064 Piece of tongue and groove panelling.
065 Wood fragment, 3 3/4" long.
066 Wood fragment, 5 1/2" long.
067 Wood fragment, 5 1/2" long.
068 Wood fragment, 4 1/2" long.
069 Wood fragment, 8 1/2" long.
070 Wood fragment, 8" long
*071 Wood fragment
072 Wood fragment, 4 3/4" long.
073 Wood fragment, 5 1/2" long.
074 Wood fragment, 6" long.
075 Wood fragment, 2 1/2" long.
076 Wood fragment, 6" long.
080 Wood fragment, 5 3/4" long.
081 Wood fragment, 4 1/2" long.
082 Wood fragment,. 3 1/2" long.
083 Wood fragment, 3 1/2" long.
084 Wood fragment, 4 1/4" long.
085 Wood fragment, 3 1/2", long.
087 Wood fragment, 16" X 1"
088 Wood fragment, 7 1/2" long.

Wood, page 2

*090 Wood fragment
091 Wood fragment, 5"' long.
092 Wood fragment, 3" long.
094 Wood fragment, 1 1/2" X 1/2" X 3/4"
095 Wood fragment, 2 3/4" long.
096 Wood fragment, 3 3/4" long.

Removed to Collections Care Center, Peebles Island,
New York.

Appendix 2

DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pueblos Island Waterford, New York 12188
HISTORIC SITES BUREAU 518-237-8043
COLLECTIONS CARE CENTER 518-237-8080

Orin Lchman, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM

October 23, 1979

TO: Gordon Watts
FROM: Kenneth Morris
RE: Treatment of Monitor Artifacts Now at Peebles Island

This memorandum is the final treatment proposal. It was ac-
cepted in its present form from the draft memo of September 26, 1979.

In order to stabilize the artifacts from the field work you
completed during August 1979, I propose the following:

Pickle Relish

The two major factors in stabilizing this artifact are the ex-
clusion of oxygen and light. In addition, and problems of microbe
growth should be considered now and eliminated. The following pro-
cedure is recommended:

1. Remove a small (e.g. 10-50 cc) sample of the relish
and store it at low temperature in the absence of
lights. I recommend a wide mouth bottle as the
storage container. (This type of bottle is listed
in the VWR Scientific Inc. Catalog '78 on page 196.
Type 16180-003 or an appropriate size should do
nicely.)

2. The remaining relish should be treated as follows:
Remove the relish into a battery jar (Type 13740-
350, see VWR Catalog '78, page 89, or an approp-
riate size); using flexible plastic hose bubble
nitrogen through the entire mass; add a biocide
such as a 2% solution of phenol (see Lawson, E.,
"In Between: The Care of Artifacts from the
Seabed to the Conservation Laboratory and Some
Reasons Why it is Necessary," Beneath the Waters
of Time, 9th ICUA, San Antonio, Texas, p. 89-90)

-2-

to the relish; and then cover the mass (2-3
inches thick) with molten wax (such as multiwax
W-445 by Witco Chemical). The wax will solidify
and seal the relish inside the container. By
doing this, air and bacteria will find it diffi-
cult to foul the relish. Even though refrigera-
tion will not be essential, this container
should also be kept cool and in the dark. In-
side a standard refrigerator would be a handy
place to keep both relish samples cool and out
of the light. However, other alternatives can
be explored at your discretion.

"Lantern Base"

This artifact is seemingly held together, at least in part, by
corrosion. The Leather centerpiece is held to the lead shot by corro-
sion and the shot itself is frozen in place by corrosion. Any tamper-
ing with this delicate balance is undesirable. The following treatment
is recommended:

Soak the object in several changes of ethyl
alcohol for four weeks. After this dehydra-
tion step hot (ca 80 F) Peg 1500 (with a
biocide added) should be applied to the
leather until it appears saturated. The
artifact should then be kept in a sealed
container and the ambient relative humidity
lowered gradually from 100% to match that
of the Peebles Island Conservation
Laboratory. At that point some consolidant
might be added to the lead shot, and the
copper should be treated to retard corro-
sion with an alcoholic solution of
Benxotriazole.

Leather Book Binding

This artifact should be stabilized without being cleaned because
the leather severely deteriorated. The procedure in this case
should be as follows:

Immerse the object in a 10% aqueous solu-
tion of Peg 1500 for 6 weeks. Freeze, then
freeze-dry the artifact. Immediately fol-
lowing the drying process the object should
have a 20% solution of Lanolin/Benzine
brushed on its "front" side. The tear now
visible in the leather should be closed and
supported from the rear with a piece of
thin paper (in a manner similar to mending
a torn work of art on paper). Any cleaning
or stain removal necessary should be done
at this point.

-3-

'rhis artifact should be i;tored in a custoin designed case made
from Plexiglas (preferably UF-3 Lypc) . The cane will serve several
purposes. It will guard against unnecessary handling of the artifact;
it aill retard degradation from light; and it. can and should be de-
slqni@_,d to retard degr adation from aLmosDhcric contaminants.

:%'Mstard Bottle

The radiograph of thi 's artifact shows three internal areas.
First there is the area visible from the outside, at the mouth of the
bottle. This rcd-brown mass is app@rently an accretion rather than
original material. Farther into the bottle, two inches from the
mouth, is the cork. It seems to be in good condition but is swollen
so that removal will not Ibe a simple process. Behind the cork and contin-
uing to the bottom of the vessel is a homogenous mass that may be the
bottle's original contents. Although it is not possible to examine- the
third constituent without tzxcavation, the do-,ircations of sections in-'
dicates that it may be original and, therefore, worth preserving as an
artifact. 'The proposed treatment is as follows:

1. Excavate the first intern al section up to the cork.
Save the contents as follows: freeze @t 'in tact for
further study. Freeze-dry the remainder.

2. Without removing the cork, excavate the third area.
Again save @t of the mdterial by freezing it and
freeze-dry the,remainder.

3. Desalinate the glass. Using the procedure out-
lined for glass in my memo of September 24, 1979,
remove the salt contaminants from the glass. (At
the discretion of theconservator the desalination
process may be carried out at a swifter pace.)

4. Immerse the cork ina 5% aqueous solution of Peg
1500 for 1 week; 7.5% for 1 week; 10% for 1 week.
Then add 0.5% Ethulose, allow to soak for 1 week,
and then dry both the cork and bottle slowly,(in
a manner identical'to that followed for the
Lantern 13ase).

Rubber Hose and Rubberized Fabric

In order to stabilize these pieces and keep them stable, storagee*,
may be nearly as important as remedial treatment, The remedial treat-
ment of-these particular a rtifacts is still under investigation. How-
ever, impregnation with a silicone or other oil and storage in custom
made glass vessels will doubtless be important parts of the treatment
procedure.. When the treatment is decided, a separate proposal will be
submitted. (I wish to rcte with great thanks the research efforts of
Ms. Victoria. Jensen, Conservator at Parks Canada's Conservation Lab in
Ottawa. Ms. Jensen has consented to test possible.treatments for these
two materials on rubber artifacts in her lab. For this cooperative
effort I @m very grateful.)

33,'

Hood

With the exception of piece 071, the %rood should be stabilized
as follows:

1. Reduce iron staining with a wash of 2% HC1.

2. Wash out HC1 with fresh tap water.

3. Immerse the wood in a 5% aqueous solution of
Peg 400 for two weeks.

4. Raise 'the Peg 1% per week for 10 weeks. Allow
the artifacts to remain in the final solution
for two weeks.

5. Freeze then freeze-dry the artifacts.

6. Apply a brush coating of 5% shellac.in Ethyl
alcohol.

Piece 071, because of its very tight grain and natural density,
should be stabilized as follows:

1. Dehydrate through several Ethyl alcohol baths.

2. Brush on hot (ca 800F) Peg 4000 until.satura-
tion...

3. Slow dry (as was done for the Lantern Base).

4. Apply a brush coating of 5% shellac in Ethyl
alcohol.

Naturally, if in my judgment, any treatment outlined here is not
showing itself to be:h the best interest ofthe artifact, I will modify
or stop the treatment. I will notify you in writing of such an occur-
rence.

The equipment, supplies necessary for these treatments, and
further treatment information will be sent to you in subsequent memos.
If you have any questions about methods or materials, pleasecontact me
by phone or in writing. I will not begin any titeatments without prior
written approval from you.

KM:kc Conservat

CC; A. W. Smith
J. Gold
P. Battaglino
J. Thatcher
L. Tise

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
3 6668 00004 9488 1