You are on page 1of 264

The S.S.

Carnatic: A Historical and Archaeological Analysis of

the Underwater Cultural Heritage of a 19th Century
Steam Powered Screw Propelled Ship

By: Janelle Harrison

A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in Accordance with the

requirement for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Maritime Archaeology and
History in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Faculty of Arts

September 2007 16,538


I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of

the University of Bristol. The work is original except where indicated by special reference in the

text and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other degree.

Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author and in no way represent those

of the University of Bristol.

The dissertation has not been presented to any other University for examination either in the

United Kingdom or overseas.


The S.S.Carnatic: A Historical and Archaeological Analysis of the

Underwater Cultural Heritage of a 19th Century
Steam Powered Screw Propelled Ship (September 2007).
Janelle Lee Diane Harrison, University of Bristol

The S.S. Carnatic was a combination sail and steam powered screw propelled ship
built in 1863 for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by the Samuda
Brothers. The ship carried passengers, Royal Mail Packets, species, and other cargo
between Suez Egypt, India, and China for approximately five years before
foundering in 1869 off an uncharted reef in the Straits of Gubal.

This study analyses the historical background of the Carnatic utilizing historical
documents to ascertain the social and economic conditions prevalent during the mid
19th century, and how these conditions affected maritime history. This study also
reviews Egyptian law pertaining to UCH. The Carnatic was a British merchant ship
but the underwater cultural resources are located in Egyptian territorial waters; a
major factor in the implementation of submerged cultural resources management
plans (SCRMP) and the laws that are in place to protect UCH.

A non-intrusive survey was conducted over the summer, 2007 to document and
record the Carnatic’s structure, the orientation of the site, and the machinery to
assess the post-depositional processes that affect the site. The results of the survey
are discussed and analyzed with final suggestions for future study of the site.


To the memory of my loving grandparents, Bill and La Verne Arellanes:

Both worked hard all their lives to give their children and grandchildren a home and I
owe them eternally for their love and support. I owe my grandmother, who passed
away a month before I started this degree for teaching me the value of knowledge. I
owe my grandfather, who passed away in 2001 for teaching me the value of hard
work. Without their love and support as a child, I may never have gotten where I am
today; or able to have completed this work.
I also would like to dedicate this work to my stepfather Steven and my mother
for their continued love and support.


I would like to thank the Dive Masters Ali Ahmed Ali and Kjell Nylund from the
Colona Dive Centre in El Gouna, Egypt, for helping me with the survey
measurements for the Carnatic. I would also like to thank Andrew Chong from the
National Maritime Museum, Brass Foundry in Greenwich, for all the valuable
information regarding the Denny Brothers and the Denny’s collection. Mike Bevan for
always responding to all my email enquiries about the P&O collection and the many
others that contributed to this research. Thank you all.


TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………x
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS………………………………………………………………xi
THE RESEARCH PLAN…………………………………………………3
RESEARCH METHODS…………………………………………………4
LITERTURE IN REVIEW…………………………………………………....7
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES……………………………….……….7
STEAM SHIPS…………………………………………………………..10
STEAM NAVIGATION COPANY……………………………………...10
OTHER WORKS………………………………………………………..12
AND THE RED SEA……………………………………………………….13
CULTURAL RESURCES……………………………………………..16



IRON FRAME, WOODEN SKIN……………………………………….20
IRON SAILING SHIPS………………………………………………….21
19TH CENTURY STEAM POWER………………………………….....22
S.S. CARNATIC: 1862-1869………………………………………………29
THE MARINE STEAM ENGINE……………………………………….32
LAMB & SUMMERS MARIE BOILER……………………………...…39
THE CARNATIC: AN IRON SHIP……………………………………..41
THE CARNATIC’S CAREER…………………………………………..44
WRECK SITE OF THE CARNATIC……………………………….…..58
SITE FORMATION……………………………………………………..67
VII THE SURVEY……………………………………………………………….69
RECORDING AND SURVEY………………………………………….72
THE BOW SECTION……………………………………………………85
THE STERN SECTION…………………………………………………92
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS………………………………………………97


APPENDIX I………………………………………………………………………………107
APPENDIX II……………………………………………………………………………...109
APPENDIX III……………………………………………………………………………..131
APPENDIX IV…………………………………………………………………………….153
APPENDIX V……………………………………………………………………………..157
APPENDIX VI…………………………………………………………………………….173
APPENDIX VII……………………………………………………………………………188
APPENDIX VIII…………………………………………………………………………..206
APPENDIX IX…………………………………………………………………………….211
APPENDIX X……………………………………………………………………………..216
APPENDIX XI…………………………………………………………………………….242


S.S. Carnatic Shipwreck located off Abu Nuhâs reef: A view of the stern by Janelle
Harrison (the author).


1 Diagram depicting the relationship of cultural resource value……………....14

2 Flow-chart of social institutions effecting UCH………………………………..17
3 Profile drawing of the S.S. Peshawur, built 1871……………………………..24
4 News clipping of the Suez Canal Opening, Illustrated London News………26
5 Profile of the S.S. Bangalore, built 1867……………………………………….28
6 Profile of the S.S. Indus, built 1871………………………………………….....28
7 Color Print of the S.S. Carnatic, built 1863…………………………………….29
8 The Carnatic’s figurehead for color print……………………………………….30
9 Photograph of Carnatic’s Figurehead…………………………………………..30
10 Photograph of the bow profile for the Indus……………………………………31
11 Photograph of details for the engines of the Carnatic………………………...32
12 Photographs: front and back sides of engine scale model of the Carnatic....33
13 Photographs: Side views of the Carnatic’s engine scale model………….….33
14 Photograph: Close-up front view of Carnatic’s engine scale model………...34
15 Humphry’s Provisional Protection Patent Nº 613……..……………………….35
16 Side elevation illustration f a mid 19th century inverted steam engine………36
17 Line drawing and description of Humphry’s tandem compounding engine…36
18 Photograph of a scale model of a horizontal direct-acting steam engine…...37
19 Illustration of a vertical tandem direct-acting stem engine and pistons……..38
20 Lamb’s Provisional Protection Patent Nº 880………………………………….40
21 Illustration of a Lamb & Summers sheet flue boiler for H.M.S. Himalaya…..40
22 Illustration of an early design two-bladed screw propeller……………………42
23 Photograph of a model two-bladed screw propeller by Peacock, c.1855…..42
24 Photograph of model screw propellers of various pitch………………………42
25 Illustration of Maudslay’s feathering screw propeller………………………….42
26 Illustration of Griffith’s patent common three-bladed screw propeller……….43
27 Illustration of Lloyd’s specifications for iron ships’ keels, circa 1863………..44


28 Illustration of Lloyd’s rules for specifications for building iron ships…….…45

29 Illustration of Lloyd’s rules for deck bracing for iron ships……………...…..45
30 Illustration of Lloyd’s rules for placement of scantlings for iron ships…..….46
31 Illustration of Lloyd’s rules for arrangement of bolts through strakes….…...46
32 Illustration of the comparative merits for constructing iron ships…….….….47
33 Map of Eastern Hemisphere and the Carnatic’s mail routes..……………....49
34 Photograph of a Time table of the Suez & Mauritius, circa 1861……….…..50
35 Photograph of a P&O table of passenger contract rates, circa 1861……….52
36 Copy of a P&O crew agreement for the Carnatic, circa 1863…..…………...53
37 Copy of a P&O crew agreement for the Carnatic, circa 1869…………….….54
38 Copy of a P&O crew agreement for the Carnatic, circa 1869………………..55
39 Copy of a P&O crew agreement for the Carnatic, circa 1869………………..56
40 Letter to Superintendent of Mercantile Service office, circa 1870…………...57
41 Chart of the Gulf of Suez and the Sinai Peninsular……………………..…….58
42 Admiralty chart of Abu Nuhâs reef & Shadwan Island………………………..59
43 Diagram of the evolution of shipwrecks…………………………………….…..65
44 Photographs: A glass soda bottle and ironstone china (Ghisotti, 2004)……70
45 Site map drawn by author, with photographs…...……………………………..73
46 Copy of ship drawing used on permatrace paper during the survey………..74
47 Two photos of the shipwrecks amidships from above………………………..79
48 Photograph o the starboard side of the ships hull, amidships…………..…..80
49 Photograph of the collapsed starboard hull looking aft………………………80
50 Photograph of an unidentified object that may belong to the engine……….81
51 Two close-up photos of the object in fig. 50…………………………………..81
52 Two photographs of the Carnatic’s boilers…………………………….………82
53 Photograph of the hollow iron main mast near the base…………………….82
54 Photographs of the main mast………………………………………………….83
55 Photograph of the two sections of the broken main mast……………………83
56 Photograph of the mizzen mast……….………………………………………..84
57 Photograph of the collapsed main deck amidships..…………………………84
58 Photograph of a half section of the starboard ship hull………………………85


59 Photograph of the starboard side hulls scantlings……………………….…85

60 Close-up photo of scantlings shown in fig. 59………………………………86
61 Photographs of the funnel and mizzen mast………………………………..87
62 Photographs of the wine rack…………………………………………….…..87
63 Photograph of what could be the ships steering wheel…………………....88
64 Photograph of the bow section taken fro the port side………………….….88
65 Photograph of the bow decking frames on the first deck…………….…….88
66 Photograph of the first bulkhead on the second deck………………………89
67 Photograph of the port side of the inside of the ship from third deck……..89
68 Photograph at 180° angle of the bow section of deck three……………….89
69 Photograph of schooling glass fish inside the Carnatic…………………….90
70 Photographs of the authors taking measurements of the bow…………….91
71 Photograph of objects inside the Carnatic………………………………...…91
72 Photograph of the figurehead mounting……………………………………...91
73 Photograph of the bowsprit ring mount……………………………………….94
74 Photograph of concreted fragments of decking and frame…………………94
75 Photograph of the torn stern section of the starboard hull………………….93
76 Photographs of a porthole, starboard side……………………………………93
77 View of stern windows from inside at first deck………………………….…..94
78 Photographs of the remaining steering mechanism…………………………94
79 Photographs of the three-bladed propeller and rudder. …………………….95
80 Close-up of the pin for the rudder……………………….……………………..96
81 Cover photograph: A view of the stern and of Ali the volunteer……….……96



1 Number of vessels and tonnage register as belonging to the UK………….23

2 Dimensions and specifications of the Carnatic……………………………….30
3 Two year weather sampling from the GFS model……………………………61
4 The Beaufort’s criterion table…………………………………………………...62
5 Ships foundered or claimed by Abu Nuhâs reef………………………………63
6 Definitions of disaster response salvage………………………………………66
7 List of Biological, Physical, and chemical parameters for SCR’s……………68
8 Measurements of the Carnatic wreck and site area…………………………..75


APS Acoustic Positioning System

BOT Board of Trade, United Kingdom
Co. Company
CRM Cultural Resource Management
CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan
DSM Direct Survey Method
ECHO Egyptian Cultural Heritage Organization
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPS Global Positioning System
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
INA Institute of Nautical Archaeology
MHA Maritime History Archive, Newfoundland
MOT Ministry of Transport, United Kingdom
NAS Nautical Archaeology Society
NMM National Maritime Museum, Greenwich
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
P&O Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
P&OSN Co. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
PRO Public Record Office (now known as the National
Archives, Kew)
SCA Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt
SCR Submerged Cultural Resource
SCUBA Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
S.S. Steam Ship
UCH Underwater Cultural Heritage
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
U.S.G.S. United States Geological Survey


The purpose of this current research is to examine the development of 19th

century iron hulled, combination sail and screw, steam-powered British merchant
ships using a multi-dimensional approach to the field of Maritime Archaeology by
investigating the S.S. Carnatic. Built in 1863 for one of the most successful
merchant companies to travel eastward from Great Britain. This ship represents a
nostalgic period in history and operated during a period of rapid cultural
developments. By investigating the Carnatic the author purports that individual 19th
century steamers are both historically and archaeologically significant and that,
numerous methods of investigation such as historical research and archaeological
data analysis should be conducted on wrecks that are considered well
documented from a historical perspective. By using methods of investigation for
historical maritime archaeology and the science of underwater archaeology,
the author hopes to contribute to the body of knowledge already established.

Therefore, the major aims are:

o To investigate the historical record and archaeological remains of a

19th century iron, combination sail and steam screw powered ship that
wrecked in the Red Sea.
o To Research the current laws and regulations for underwater cultural
heritage in the Red Sea

While the major objectives are:

o To conduct an archaeological survey and to record the findings

o To compare and contrast the material cultural from the wreck site of
the Carnatic with the historical record of the Carnatic and place this
information in the context of maritime ethnology and the meaning of
19th century iron screw propelled steamers in general.

o To analyze the evidence and contribute to the current body of
knowledge associated to the topics discussed in this work
o To document the wreck site using an underwater video camera, still
photographs and basic measurements to draw a scaled sketch map of the

This work is divided into eight chapters, each contributing to the aims and
objectives already laid out. The first chapter introduces the topic of research
undertaken by the author. This is followed by a chapter outline and the proposed
research plan and methods. Chapter two discusses the theoretical contributions to
the study of maritime archaeology, UCH, and survey methods; this discussion is
built around a review of the literature used to support this work. Chapter three
introduces the submerged cultural resource management and specifically
addresses the approaches the Egyptian government has taken to protect UCH. It
also introduces the international laws and legislation that affect Egyptian UCH.
Chapter four introduces the historical setting and background of 19th
century iron screw steamers built in Britain. The aim is to gain an appreciation for
the rapid change in shipbuilding during this period from a historical and technological
perspective. Chapter five is an in depth historical investigation of the
S.S. Carnatic. Chapter six introduces the surveying aspects of this research and
covers the site location and the site formation process based on Muckelroy’s
model (1978). Chapter seven is the presentation of evidence, collected by means
of photography by the author during the survey and it also includes an artist
conception drawing to scale (where possible) of the site. Chapter eight is the final
chapter. This chapter summarizes the authors thesis and makes several final
recommendations for the site and what research could further be conducted on the
Carnatic wreck site to improve the field of maritime archaeology and the opinions
held regarding more modern shipwrecks. The final conclusion is to elucidate the
subject of archaeological study of 19th century iron screw steamers.

The Research Plan

The research plan will be carried out in four phases:

1) Phase one will be archival research of the vessel, the company that
built the ship, the owners who employed the ship, the wrecking, and
the cultural context of 19th century shipbuilding. Also to research
and gain a comprehensive understanding of cultural heritage
management and the laws effecting UCH in the Red Sea.

2) Phase two will be researching appropriate contacts, contacting

them, contacting dive operators and any other persons located in
Egypt that can help with conducting a non-intrusive surveyof the Carnatic.
This also includes contacting the Supreme Council of Antiques to inquire if
a permit is required for a non-intrusive survey of the site, and to apply for
a permit for permission to conduct an extensive survey if the means become
available in the future.

3) The third phase is to conduct a non-intrusive survey to the best of the

authors’ ability given both financial and time constraints.
Therefore, to maximize on both of these constraints the author will invest
in an underwater video camera housing and a digital video camera to record
the site, and to use the video and photograph obtained in the final analysis and
interpretation of the site.

4) The fourth and final phase of the research plan is to correlate all of
the historical and archaeological data into one report that will
conclusively support the author’s thesis based on the evidence

This research plan will be the guidelines for the work being undertaken by
the author. The focus of this research is to view younger shipwrecks like the
Carnatic 1 from several dimensions inherent to the field of maritime archaeology
and the current issues effecting the preservation of sites, and the various
dimensions of maritime culture.

Research Methods

For conducting an underwater archaeological investigation there are many

methods to choose from for recording and surveying a site. There are also a
number of factors that need to be evaluated before a method should be chosen;
these are:
o Location of the site (easy access, difficult, is there lots of boating traffic
o Maximum depth and minimum depth
o Sea conditions
o Local weather at the site
o Bottom topography
o Visibility
o What type of equipment should be used
o Skill level of the team
o Amount of time
o Level of funding (if any)

This concept of younger and older shipwrecks is a concept that archaeologist’s such as Muckelroy first

purported in the 1970’s. Muckelroy (1978) considered anything after the 1800’s to be a younger
shipwreck, or a vessel not distanced from the present (his present) and thus not really historical (yet) or
even if historical, there is enough documentation on these types of ships to make archaeological
research redundant. But more and more maritime archaeologist are starting to understand that time,
used as a method of measuring historical value can become irrelevant. With the investigation of these
documented vessels archaeologist that do conduct an archaeological investigation are discovering more
flaws in the historical record. The Carnatic for instance, from Muckelroy’s point of view, is young and
documented enough that it is not of enough historical value archaeologically to investigate, but the
Carnatic is one of the oldest shipwreck known in the Red Sea. If the Carnatic is compared to the
Sadana, an Ottoman-period shipwreck on the historical timeline of measuring value by age, then yes,
the Carnatic is young (Ward, 1996). Conversely though, the Carnatic represents a very historical period,
not the Ottoman-period of trade but the Victorian. In 400 years time the study of Victorian age
shipwrecks will want to be analyzed in great detail to the extent that today archaeologist want to
investigate Ottoman-period wrecks, one can presume, but due to the rapid rate of corrosion of iron ships
there more than likely will not be A Carnatic wreck site resting on the sea-bed for one of the greatest
shipping trade and passenger routes of the Victorian era.

The method chosen for this work resulted from the evaluation of this list
(Oxley, 1992; Green, 2004; MAP II Design Notes. NAS, 2007). The decision was
made to video record the site with a Panasonic PV-GS320 digital video camera
housed in a Wet N Rugged Pro 6 underwater video camera housing. 2 The digital
video camera was fitted with a 0.45mm wide-angle macro lens. 3 This caused
some distortion of the photographs and in the video, but it captures 180° rather
than a field of view of only 90° (Singh, 2000). This method of recording rather
than to scale drawings in situ is the most logical, given the constraints of diving
on a 12 or 15-liter scuba tank at a maximum depth of 27m (Oxley, 1992; Green,
2004; Gaur et al., 1998; Gould, 1991).
The original survey plan included conducting a 3D Direct Survey Method
(DSM) and inputting the data collected in Site Recorder (Higgins, 2007). After
further consideration, this option was not feasible due to several factors:
1) A small budget with no volunteers other that the author
2) The SCA had not responded to the authors’ request for a permit to
conduct non-intrusive surveys of the wreck site prior to the dates set.
3) Volatility of the weather and prospect of not getting in enough dives to
properly establish control points to start or complete a DSM.
The final decision for surveying method is to make a series of simple direct
measurements from stable points that are easily identifiable, such as the length
of the bow section that is still intact, the length of the stern section, the sterns
keel, and distances between the keel, propeller blades and rudder and lengths of
the masts. The main objective will be to obtain enough data from the
measurements to begin a scale drawing of the entire site area. 4 Eventually, if
research continues in the future, more data can be collected and collaborated
with this work.

See appendix I for photographs of the video camera housing.


A diagram of the field of view with the 0.45X wide angle lens:



0.45X 180°

The hope is that future survey work will continue at the site and that a full DSM survey will be

conducted with the data added to the GIS program Site Recorder.

By using the various areas or disciplines and their respective source
materials to develop supporting evidence for this work, it is possible to purport
that this work will contribute to the body of knowledge for the field of maritime
archaeology— providing a new dimension of understanding by building on that
which has already been established.
Beginning with the traditional definition and working through the more
modern and contemporary approaches to the field of archaeological research, it
is reasonable to conclude that the recreational scuba diver and their effects on
shipwrecks will eventually have to be considered a phenomena of maritime
culture. 5 This work is not going to focus on this phenomena, but it is important to
keep this idea in mind whilst examining the laws relating to shipwrecks in the Red
Sea and the Egyptian Governments approach to protecting and defining
historical wreck sites. It is important to reiterate that the purpose of this work is
not to ban recreational divers from diving potential cultural resources, but to
evaluate the efforts being made to educate the public about these sites, and the
methods used in doing this (Spirek et al., 2003).

Maritime archaeology (also known as marine archaeology) is a discipline that studies human

interaction with the sea, lakes and rivers through the study of vessels, shore side facilities, cargoes,
human remains and submerged landscapes. One specialty is underwater archaeology, which studies
the past through any submerged remains. Another specialty within maritime archaeology is nautical
archaeology, which studies vessel construction and use (Wikipedia, 2007). Maritime archaeology then,
must include the study of recreational scuba divers since scuba is a human interaction with the sea.
Many divers are also interested in and dive shipwrecks. They are as much apart of the study of maritime
archaeology as a ship captain or a shipbuilder, it’s just at the present the behavior and actions of the
diver is not considered an area of study because the sport is new and there isn’t the distance between
our current cultural and the diving community.


The scope of literature reviewed for this dissertation can be divided into
five major areas of disciplines or sources:
I. Maritime archaeological methods and techniques;
II. Underwater Cultural Heritage and Resource Management.
III. The development of 19th century iron hulled, combination
sail/steam screw propelled merchant ships built in Great Britain;
IV. Primary archival source documentation on the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Fleet of the 19th century and the
Suez/India mail route.
V. Other works.
Each of these areas of sources contains a pantheon of works. These range from
journal articles to books; governmental pamphlets, reports, news clippings and
T.V. documentaries to legislation. All of which form the foundations for the
research, analysis and writing of this current work.

Contributions in Maritime Archaeological Methods and Techniques

It is possible that the writings of Keith Muckelroy (1980a) and his

ideological model influenced those in the field of maritime archaeology so much
that his argument which states “As an academic discipline archaeology becomes
redundant at the point where archives, representations, and oral histories provide
more cultural information than can be obtained from the materials themselves”
deterred many members of the archaeological community from conducting
through archaeological surveys and recordings of these types of vessels ; leaving
the reporting of their stories only to the historians until fairly recently (1980a,
p.10). Furthermore, Muckelroy (1980a, p.10) sets a cut-off date, which marks an

ending date for vessels worthy of archaeological investigation around the early
1800’s. This cut-off date however, is on a continuously forward perpetuating
timeline, and whilst there may be extensive historical documentation of vessels
post-dating the cut-off point he set, these documents do not provide information
about a vessels transformation once it reaches the seabed or the interaction
between the recreational divers and the shipwreck site (McCarthy, 2000; Spirek
et al., 2003). Unlike woods vessels deposited on the sea floor, iron vessels have
a faster rate of disintegration than wooden vessels and therefore a shorter
lifespan, depending on the enviromental conditions (Green, 2004; Clark, 1990;
Spirek et al., 2003; McCarthy 2000). These contemporary texts and other reports
from numerous maritime archaeologists published in the International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology proved to be an invaluable informational resource in understanding the
processes involved in maritime archaeological surveying, recording, excavation, analysis,
and interpretation. Many of the theoretical approaches used by them collaborate with
the views of George Bass, the American Professor known for his underwater
excavation of a Bronze Age Wreck off Cape Gelidonya in Turkey circa 1960
(Easterbrook et al., 2003).
Perhaps not as academically recognized, but just as informative as, and
certainly more entertaining than his publications is the documentary series Green
stars in called Shipwreck Detectives (aired on ABC and UKTV History, 5 July
2007). Green’s opinion of the archaeological study of more modern iron
shipwrecks is now the more popular view in the field of maritime archaeology
(UKTV History, 5 July 2007). He stated on one of his recently re-aired series that
“corrosion will destroy these wrecks…iron ship wrecks appear to not be
surviving…and we will be left with wooden wrecks but not iron” (UKTV History, 5
July 2007) and so Green purports that the archaeological study of these wrecks
are important in the field of maritime archaeology and his opinion was influential
in the development of the current work.

Cultural Heritage and Submerged Resource Management

Approaches to cultural heritage and resource management vary greatly

from region to region. A large portion of the literature reviewed for this research
also points out that it was not until the 20th century that there was a need for
protection of cultural heritage, attributing this to schemes for “social and
economic development” on land— this is just as true for submerged cultural
resources (Cleere et al., 1884; Dromgoole, 1999; Spirek, 2003). The technologies
that are propelling the discoveries, survey methods and data acquisition in
maritime archaeology forward into realm of science fiction are also threatening
the cultural heritage that was once safe in the deep, dark waters of the world’s
oceans. These texts address the issues of threats to cultural heritage and
propose was of managing it.
Working from a wide range of papers from proceedings on underwater
archaeology and books dedicated to managing submerged cultural recourses to
publications from UNSECO, 6 for both ancient sites and monuments on land and
more recently publications dealing specifically with cultural heritage underwater, a
body of knowledge was gathered to compare and contrast the current situation of
cultural heritage management in the Red Sea. Without these various works the
idea of placing a cultural value on a 19th century shipwreck and defining that
value according to its associative, symbolic, informational, aesthetic, or
economical values would prove impossible (Lipe, 1984). The combined opinion of
these texts forms a census about the importance of cultural heritage and how it is
defined for the broader world community. They can be used as guides or as
stepping-stones to further developments in the understanding of managing and
defining submerged cultural heritage and maritime landscapes. But in most cases
these works lead to legislation, which is used to protect the world’s submerged
cultural resources.

See appendix VII for a copy of UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural


Texts on 19th Century British Merchant Steam Ships

The texts used for research into 19th century ships are both contemporary
for that period as well as historical texts contemporary to the current time. They
are comprised of both primary and secondary sources. When ever possible, the
primary source of information was sourced out for this research. Major treatise on
steam power and screw prolusion as well as iron construction for vessels was
reviewed in detail to support or refute the historical accounts which were also
used from the secondary sources written about this subject. After careful review
of these texts, they were used to formulate a study of the technological changes
in merchant shipping, and how these changes affected the lives of those who
lived during that period. Using the texts to reach beyond the historical account
they were also used in the interpretative process of the archaeological research
undertaken, and used to formulate a theory of current human activity associated
with the case study that was researched: The S.S. Carnatic.
Many of the secondary texts reviewed the technological development of
19 century ships, comparing and contrasting these developments by region,
usually by countries, i.e. America, Britain and France. In most cases the
economic environment, which contributed to or hindered the developmental
process was also discussed from a historical perspective. The aims of this current
research are to apply the same analysis on a more micro level, focusing on one
British merchant shipping company; the P&O, and more specifically to the S.S.
Carnatic and the Suez/India passenger and mail route.

Primary Sources on the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The Caird Library at The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich is the

official P&O depository. The majority of primary sources regarding the company
and their fleet were located there and used for the research into the economic,
political, social and technical dimensions associated with the study and analysis
of the Carnatic as a case study for the research discipline of maritime
archaeology (Muckelroy, 1978, p.227). The original company account ledgers

and ledgers filled with transcribed letters between the P&O and the Postmaster
General revealed numerous interesting details that contributed further to this
The official Wreck Register and the courts official review of the wrecking,
summary of the results, the official number of reported deaths from the wrecking
of the Carnatic, and numerous statistics that elucidate the errors made in books
and on internet websites about the death total from the wrecking can be found at
the National Archives, Kew. Conversely, both locations housed very little
information about the company that built the Carnatic: the Samuda Brothers. 7
The Caird Library outstation in Woolwich does house the plans of several P&O
vessel built in the 1860’s that look to be very similar to the Carnatic; two masts,
one funnel, around the same tonnage, etc. but built by a different company.
These plans were good to review for comparison with the material cultural
remains of the Carnatic, and in helping to identify aspects of the wreck site that
were unidentifiable due to corrosion and the wrecking of the ship, but it would
seem unreasonable to assume these vessels were exactly alike, and therefore
these ships plans could only be used as a general reference.

See appendix IV for details of the Samuda Bros. Company Disillusion. At the height of the Samuda

Bros. Shipyard’s production in 1863 Barry wrote “Messr. Samuda Brothers have at the moment 15,700
tons in hand [one of these vessels was the Carnatic’s sister ship the Rangoon]. The other week they
turned out H.M. transport ship Tamar, 3,000 tons, of the Himalaya class. In construction at present they
have H.M Cupola frigate Prince Albert, 2,29 tons, another vessel for the British Government; two for the
Viceroy of Egypt; two for the Peninsular and Oriental Company; and four for foreign governments and
steam navigation companies of importance. If to the 15,700 tons now in construction in the Messrs.
Samuda’s yard is added the tonnage of the Tamar just out of hand, their new tonnage compares with
the new tonnage of all dockyards, Pembroke included, as follows; it being to be borne in mind that
although there is a considerable aggregate tonnage in construction in all the dockyards, Pembroke
included, there are only the Achilles frigate, the Enterprise sloop and the Favorite and the Research
corvettes really are new work; the Prince Consort, Ocean, Caledonia, Zealous, Royal Alfred, Royal Oak,
and Royal Sovereign being nothing more than old line of battle ships down and armour clad. The
comparison between the new work in all the dockyards is Messrs. Samuda’s 18,700 tons against the
Achilles, the sloop, and the corvettes, 10,508 tons. The Messrs. Samuda are therefore doing almost
twice the new work of all the dockyards put together, and be it observed that the whole tonnage in the
Messrs. Samuda’s yard is iron, while the whole new tonnage in all the dockyards put together is
represented by the one ship the Achilles” (pp. 62,63).

Other Works

Other Works is not just other mediums of knowledge such as internet

websites, videos, and photographs, but also other disciplines that contribute to
the understanding of a 19th century iron hulled, steam powered shipwreck in a
particular type of biological environment: Namely warm, high salinity water with
volatile currents. Reports on biological growth forming coral and artificial coral
reefs were examined to determine the effect these living organisms have on the
Carnatic wreck site.
This brief review of the body of knowledge and theoretical contributions to
cultural resource management, the science of maritime archaeology and the
historical context of 19th century screw steamers is based on the research of the
author and is the foundation from which this work is built from. This work also is
unique and the authors’ aim is to contribute to the current debate regarding the
archaeology of modern historical shipwrecks.


Underwater cultural heritage (UCH) and resource management is based on

the ideology that objects from that past, both near and far represent the “values,
aspirations, beliefs, patterns of behavior and interpersonal relations established or
predominant within a given social group”, and it also represents that groups
heritage as a resource that should be valued just like our natural resources such
as oil (Trotzig, 1989, p.59) According to Green (2004), Emad Khalil and Mohamed
Mustafa (2002), Sarah Dromgoole et al. (1999), and Paul Clark (1990). It is
legislation that needs to be put into place to protect what has been defined as
UCH and from there a cultural resource management plan needs to be
implemented in order to properly protect these resources.
The following chapter will demonstrate the meaning of cultural value and
outline what legislation has been implemented in Egypt regarding underwater
cultural heritage; what types of cultural resource management plans exist in
Egypt, if any, and propose new forms of management plans and schemes for
areas of the Red Sea should be modeled after submerged cultural resource
management plans from countries that have developed preserves and shipwreck
trails around the world: from the West Coast U.S.A. to West Coast Australia. 8 By
examining various schemes already implemented in an effort to discuss a CRM
design already in place or to re-design a scheme for the Egyptian Red Sea, a
coherent understanding of what maritime and submerged cultural heritage is will
develop through to progression of this discourse and aid in the investigative study
of the Carnatic.

These countries have in recent years developed CRM plans that grant access to, and provide

knowledge of shipwrecks in their territorial waters. Patrick O’Keefe (2003) espouses that the world’s
governments should adopt one cohesive legal framework for the protection of wrecks, and the author

Modeling CRMP’s based on Cultural Value

One of the first steps in creating a CRM scheme according to

Lipe (1984, pp.1-10) is to identify the economic, aesthetic, associative/symbolic,
or informational aspects of the resource(s). Many cultural resources may have
one or more of these values, and this model will be used for investigation and
analysis of the Carnatic.

Preserved material form past cultures: Public understanding of & appreciation

Preserved Cultural Resources Objects, structures, sites, human For cultural resources

Governmental policies, laws, agencies, Books, articles, films, classes, lectures,

Social Institutions Educational institutions; societies & interest museum displays about past cultures
groups; and business devoted to cultural
resource preservation & study

Types of Value Economic Aesthetic Associative/symbolic Informational

Economic potential Aesthetic standards, Traditional Formal research,

market factors; costs stylistic tradition, knowledge, historical history, archaeology,
Value Contexts of development vs. human psychology, documents, oral art, & architectural
preservation etc. tradition, folklore, history, folklore
mythology, etc. studies, etc.

Basic phenomena Cultural Resource Base, Objects, structures, sites, human

landscapes surviving from the past

Figure 1. A flow diagram of cultural resource value (from Lipe, 1984)

Figure 1 exhibits the relationship between the preserved cultural resources,
the social institutions that interpret them, and the types of values these institutions
can derive from them. It is on the tier of social institutions that CRM’s schemes play
a decisive role. However, it lacks in the details that should expose the numerous
threats 9 to these cultural resources that may inherently be derived from them (i.e.
the economic gain of dive tourism in the Red Sea) or from their inappropriate
application or use. Accordingly, Green (2004, p.369) purports that for cultural
resource management plans to work and to be successful they must be a public
operation which includes “local, national, and international” interest and desire to
protect them; without the public’s desire the effects can be futile on the future
preservation of the cultural resource. It is the public that eventually decides what
the value of a cultural resource is, whether it is aesthetic, economic, symbolic or
informational and therefore, it is a vital role of a CRM plan to educate the public
about underwater cultural resources. 10

There are many types of threats to UCH; many of these are unavoidable, such as the biological and

physical threats of the UCH’s environment. Recreational divers also pose serious threats when they do
not respect a site and loot it of artifacts. Not all recreational divers are threats to UCH and responsible
divers should not be banned from stable underwater sites just because it area is of historical or cultural
value. Another real threat to shipwreck sites are salvage companies. Ships can have two types of
economical value to a salvage company: The first is the cargo the ship carried, i.e. species, Chinese
porcelain, etc., the second is the ship itself. Modern shipwrecks are built of hundreds of thousands of
tons of iron or steel. In particular areas it has been seen as and economical decision for a country who
has the rights to a shipwreck within its territorial waters if abandonment has been established under the
UN’s Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1973) to sell the wrecks to salvage companies.
This is precisely the case that has been recently debated on a forum board (
HEPCA (2007) sent the forum members a letter stating that the Egyptian Ministry of Transport did not
have the legal right to sell the alleged 7 shipwrecks to the salvage company, but if abandonment can be
established by the salvage company or the Ministry of Transport, which they easily could, then it is quite
feasible that this salvage company could blow up these 7 shipwrecks (only two identified on the forum
board) for scrap metal. That fact that no one has mentioned UNCLOS on the forum board is shocking.
Lipe (1989, p.4) states that a cultural resource of high quality, as measured by the context of the

present time, can be a powerful symbol of the past. The person who encounters this cultural resource
can have a feeling of being tied to the past, and the cultural resource can then evoke this associated
affect, but this affect is “highly conditioned” and is ultimately based on the knowledge that that person
has of the past or what is provided for that person “on the spot.” It is the forehand knowledge that
provides the quality and meaningfulness of the encounter and not just the material resource itself, yet
the resource remains dominant in this subjective experience.

Egyptian Law, the Red Sea and Submerged Cultural Resources

Now that the symbiotic relationship between associated values, social

institutions, and the preserved cultural artifact(s) have been diagramed (Figure 1)
it is imperative to implement the model in the context of the institutions, which
govern the case study being investigated: the Carnatic wreck site. The Egyptian
government, like many governmental bodies is not the last authoritative
organization on the social institutional tier that implements laws regarding cultural
resources on land or in the oceans and seas of their geographic territory. Any
country that is a Member State of the United Nations (UN), has agreed to adhere
to the UN’s Convention for Laws of the Sea and treaties established in the
Charter. In addition to being a Member State of the UN, Egypt is also a Member
State of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). 11
Egypt has been a Member States of the UN since 24 October 1945, 12 and
a Member State of UNESCO since 4 November 1946 when UNESCO was first
established. Due to Egypt’s economic conditions, a great deal of the
archaeological work and the cultural heritage management funding that supports
Egyptian CRMP’s has had to come from the social institutions out side the
Egyptian Government, i.e. UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites are subsidized by
UNESCO project funding. The following brief description of each of these social
institutions or non-profit organizations will elaborate on the current political and
social conditions that effect the implementation of submerged cultural resource
management plans. In addition to UNESCO, the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a non-governmental advisory body of
professionals that counsel’s UNESCO as to which site should be placed on the
World Heritage List (ICOMOS, 2007).

It should be noted that not all UN members are Member States of UNESCO, i.e. the United States is a

member state of the UN, and form 4 November 1946 to 31 December 1984 was a member of UNESCO,
but the U.S. withdraw it’s member status until it rejoined 1 October 2003 (UNESCO, 2007).
Egypt and Syria were original Members of the United Nations from 24 October 1945. Following a

plebiscite on 21 February 1958, the United Arab Republic was established by a union of Egypt and Syria
and continued as a single Member. On 13 October 1961, Syria, having resumed its status as an
independent State, resumed its separate membership in the United Nations. On 2 September 1971, the
United Arab Republic changed its name to the Arab Republic of Egypt (UN, Dept. of Public information,

United Nations

United Nations Educational United Nations Convention

Scientific & Cultural on the Law of the Sea
Organization (UNESCO) (UNCLOS)

International Council on Monuments & Sites


Egyptian Government

Ministry of Culture Ministry of Transport

Supreme Council of Antiquities

The Department of Foreign Archaeological Missions

Underwater Archaeology Department

Hurghada Environmental Institute of

The Egyptian Protection and Nautical
Cultural Heritage Conservation Archaeology
Organization Association Egypt

Figure 2. Is a navigational flow-chart of the social institutions that effect the preservation of submerged cultural
resources in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean bordering the Egyptian coastline.

The flow-chart in Figure 2 illustrates many of the social institutions,
governments and international governmental bodies involved in implementing the
legislation for protect and preservation of underwater cultural heritage (UCH). It
does not represent all relations in the processes involved in UCH, but it does
exemplify the main channels through which archaeological work, underwater
cultural heritage, and CRM plans must pass through and be approved by for any
action to occur.
The Egyptian SCA’s has a very board definition of CH and legislation at
this time does not refer specifically to UCH, submerged CRM plans, or the specific
protection of historical wrecks in the Red Sea. 13 The identification and recognition
of CH in Egypt is ruled under law Nº. 117 and is concerned with the identification,
registration, and protection of Egyptian antiquities normally defined as anything
older than 100 years old of historical, scientific, religious, artistic, or literary value.
There are no laws specific to UCH (ECHO, 2006).
Legislation specifically relating to UCH in Egypt is based on the laws
imposed on Member States of the UN; Member States that have signed the
UNESCO and UNCLOS agreements, and Members of ICOMOS. 14 Egypt has
always been a founding member these bodies and adheres to the policies
imposed by the UNCLOS. The focus for UCH and CRM plan implementation
has best been executed in the Mediterranean waters that border Egypt (ECHO 16,
2006). UNESCO and Egypt have worked together to create one of the worlds first
underwater World Heritage Sites located in the Alexandria Harbor (Tzalas, 2003).
This is an exciting achievement for marine archaeology in Egypt, but there is still a
large gap in the efforts being made in the Red Sea in general, and on younger
shipwreck sites specifically. Hopefully this work will elucidate the issues that effect
the preservation and understanding of our underwater cultural heritage.

For a full report issued by the Center for Documentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage supported by

Egypt’s Ministry of Communications in relation to Egyptian Heritage Management, Site Management,

Cultural and Ecotourism, and the National Register Database go to
See appendix IX for a copy of ICOMOS regulations for UCH.

See appendix VII for UNESCO’s Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.

Egyptian Cultural Heritage Organization at




The 19th century marks one of the pivotal points of interest in shipping
history. The rise of the Industrial Revolution and the technology that it brought with
it changed not only how ships were built, but also how they were thought of. An
ideological shift developed that changed the way people viewed the world, the ship,
and yes, tradition (Arnold, 2000; Gardiner, 1992; Gardiner, 1993a; Gould 200). It is
the evaluation of 19th century shipping, its technological advances, the economic
and social aspects, as well as the shipyards and builders that shall be considered
to develop the historical background and context of the time period from which the
Carnatic came from (Arnold, 2000).

Before Iron, Before Steam

The shipping industry in Britain as well as all over the world up to the mid-
19 century consisted of wooden sailing vessels. There were no screw propellers,
no marine steam engines, no paddle-wheels except for the occasional experimental
vessel that sometimes was a relative success; as was the case in 1802 when Dr.
Shorter built the first screw propelled vessel in Britain (Holmes, 1889, p.23;
Gardiner 1993a, p.84). Despite the fact that the screw propeller design would need
to under go many changes before it became a functional form of propulsion, there
was another factor that held back the use of this invention, and that was the fact
that steam power was not yet efficient to be used in shipping, and it would be at
least another 35 years before the use of either came into mainstream use in Britain
(Holmes, 1889).
Since the rise of the inventions of the Industrial Revolution that changed
19th century shipping did not become popularized and efficient in the building
industry until the 1850’s and 1860’s the majority of vessels, large and small being
built in Britain and Scotland were sailing ships (Arnold, 2000; Gardiner, 1993a). The
sailing ship of the 19th century also underwent a great deal of change based on
three events in history: The first being the scarcity of strong wood locally to build a

wooden vessel, while conversely there was an increase in iron availably for
building. The second would be a series of Merchant shipping Acts 17 around the
1850’s that changed the way in which tonnage was measured in England
(Greenhill, 1980). The third event of the 19th century of course, was that sailing
ships would eventually have to compete with steam power. These three events,
which are interchangeable between economic, political, technological, and social
dimensions are well known in the study of maritime history and are the events that led
to the design of hybrid ships that will now be reviewed in brief.

Iron Frame, Wooden Skin

One of the most popular changes that took place in the construction of
purely wind-powered sailing vessels was the development of the composite built
ship (MacGregor, 1979; MacGregor, 1983a; MacGregor, 1988b; MacGregor,
1993c; Gardiner, 1993a). A composite built vessel in general terms is a ship that is
built of metal and wood. In the early 1800’s they did not have steel so the metal
referred to in this case is iron. A composite ship was not limited to only being a
sailing vessel, and in fact there were many paddle steamers and screw propelled
vessels that were built as composite ships 18 before the complete transition to metal
construction (MacGregor, 1983a). But what is crucial in understanding the true
definition of a composite built ship is that it was not just a combination of wood and
iron materials but also how they were used.

Wooden skin and i ron framework— The system of composite shipbuilding most
generally pr acticed i s that pat ented by M r. J ordan 184 9. The w hole out er s kin,
including keel, stem, stern-post and planking, is of wood, arranged as in the skin
of an ordinary wooden ship; and the framework inside the skin, including frames,
beams, keelsons, stringers…transoms, diagonal braces, etc. is of iron, arranged
nearly as in an ordinary iron ship. It is to the system inparticular that
Underwriters’ Rules refer (Young, 1867, article 46).

The excerpt clearly states that for a ship to be defined by the Underwriters’ Rules
as a composite built vessel (as listed in the 19th century), it had to be built to

For further research on calculations used for the new tonnage laws under the Merchant Shipping Act

of 1854, see G. Moorsom A brief review and analyses of the laws for the admeasurement of tonnage.
This book was published in 1852 and was the guideline handbook for tonnage calculation used by
Parliament in creating the Merchant Shipping Act.
Captain Andrew Henderson built the Assam in India in the 1840’s. This composite-built steamer was

450 tons. Details of propulsion type (paddle or screw) are not given due to the lack of original
construction design (MacGregor, 1983a, p.85)

numerous specifications. A ship could not just be labeled a composite just because
some of the parts were wood and some of the pieces were iron. Therefore a ship
with an iron hull, a ship like the Carnatic would not be described as “an iron framed
planked passenger ship” as it was by Ned Middleton (1999-2004). This gives the
reader the impression that the hull is planked. The Carnatic did have wooden decks
just as many iron ships did in her time, but this does not define the vessel as a
composite built ship, nor would the surveyor describe the ship by the materials,
which made up the decks, but rather the description would simply have been “iron
Composite ship building in England and Scotland never dominated the
industry; at their peak in 1866 they only represented 14% of sailing ship
construction in Britain (Greenhill, 1980; Mitchell and Deane as quote in MacGregor,
1993c). But there is great historical interest in the composite built Tea Clippers,
known for their fine lines and speed. Eventually they had to succumb to the fate of
modernization, and they would be the sailing ships last fight against the power of

Iron Sailing Ships

Ship builders in Britain and Scotland were not just utilizing the benefits of
using iron frames to create a stronger, lighter vessel that allowed for more cargo in
relation to the registered tonnage— there were builders that had made the
transition completely to an iron hull. MacGregor (1993c, p.85) notes that in 1848 the
iron barque Panic entered the China tea trade. Other iron-hulled clippers would
follow, one of the last being the Torrens built in 1875 (Colton, 1937). The major
disadvantage at this time for the ship owners was that no anti-fouling solution was
suitable to reduce the fouling that built up on the bottom of the ship whilst crossing
the eastern seas (MacGregor, 1993c). To clean this fouling was time consuming
and costly, diminishing the benefits gained by building with this material. Charles
Young (1867) purported that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Company were expending upwards of £70,000 a year removing the fouling. An
examination of the Carnatic’s ship movements for the duration of her service to the
P&O line reveals a time period of almost a month of non-service at each final port
on their Suez-India mail route (NMM, P&O/40/10/; P&O/40/11; P&O/40/12;
P&O/40/13). Undoubtedly a majority of this time was clearing the iron hulls of the

barnacles and other fouling. Although the P&O SN Co. never owned or operated an
iron-hulled, fully wind powered sailing ship, their financial records are extensive and
provide a greater breath of understanding the implications involved in operating a
passenger and cargo vessel constructed of this material.
Another aspect of building with iron that many naval engineers of the early to
mid 19th century faced was the magnetic deviation created by the iron. It was
hammering of the iron that created this effect. Magnetic deviation affected the
accuracy in a compass and the compass, which the navigator relied on heavily,
could not detect magnetic north accurately and this was a real cause for concern
(Global Security, 2000-2007). Another physical characteristic that slowed the initial
use of iron ships, especially in the Royal Navy was its susceptibility to corrosion—
rusting that was caused by the iron oxidation. But the Admiralty also claimed that a
paddle steamer could not compare in speed and maneuverability against a sailing
ship, and the economic inefficiency of the marine steam engine only aided in the
slow transition to steam power from sail in the Royal Navy. These were the major
reasons wooden built vessels were chosen by Admiralty and composite or
wooden built ships were chosen in the merchant sector. But there were some
ambitious merchants and they built their companies on the power of steam. It would
be Cunard that traveled to the West, whilst it would be the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation company that would travel to the East, fighting against competition
like the East India Co. for the Royal Mail Contracts: P&O won the contracts, and it is
P&O that can be used as the epitome for the rise in 19th century steam navigation.

19th Century Steam Power

England’s Ministry of Transport (MOT) maintained records of vessels registered as

belonging to the United Kingdom and the registered tonnage. Table 1 represents
the figures provided. The MOT did not specify whether the vessels registered in the
years 1833, 1834, & 1835 were steam powered or sailing, because at this early
period of the 19th century a steam powered vessel was usually only the result of an
experiment (Fairbairn, 1865). For the years 1869, 1870, & 1871 the MOT does
specify how many vessels registered were sailing or steam and the registered
tonnage for each category (TNA, MT9/72). Table 1 was supplemented with data
from Gardiner (1993).

By analyzing this information and comparing years and decades, the
exponential increase in steam power during the second half of the 19th century is
apparent, and by 1880 the registered tonnage of steam vessels is almost equal to
the number of sailing vessels and double what it was in 1860. By 1890, the
registered tonnage of steam ships doubles again, and is more than twice as much
registered tonnage than sailing ships. The most intriguing aspect of this rapid
increase in the registered tonnage of steam ships compared to that of the sailing
ships, is not necessarily due to an exponential production rate in the overall number
of iron hulled steam ships being built (although the total number of stem ships was
increasing), but was the result of individual size of each ship; the tonnage for a
passenger/cargo vessels had doubled by 1870 (see figures 3 and 6) and tripled by
1890 compared to those registered in 1860.

Table 1. Number of Vessels and Tonnage Registered as Belonging to the United Kingdom

Years Sailing Vessels Steam Vessels Totals

# Of Ships Tons # Of Ships Tons # Of Ships Tons

1833 ------ ----- ----- ----- 19,158 2,233,855

1834 ---- ----- ---- ---- 19,447 2,274,702
1835 ----- ------ ----- ----- 19,737 2,320,667
1850 ------ 3,396,659 ------ 168,474 ------ 3,565,133
1860 ------ 4,204,360 ------ 454,327 ------ 4,658,687
1869 23,426 4,687,706 2,963 947,021 26,389 5,634,727
1870 22,475 4,506,318 3,168 1,111,375 25,643 5,617,693
1871 21,817 4,305,112 3,371 1,317,548 25,188 5,622,660
1880 ----- 3,851,045 ---- 2,723,468 ------ 6,574,513
1890 ---- 2,936,021 ---- 5,042,517 ----- 7,978,538

(After TNA, MT9/72; Gardiner 1993, p.10)

The exponential increase in the registered tonnage for steam powered ships
reflects the technological brake through that was needed to make alternative
propulsion, the use of iron, and eventually steel an economically viable, political
acceptable, and socially necessary for the culture of 19th century British society.
Table 1 also helps to put into perspective, the uniqueness of the iron hulled, steam
powered screw ship built in the United Kingdom from the early1860’s. When the
data from Table 1 is compared to the number of shipbuilders, and various patents
on engines, steering, screw propellers’ etc., almost every ship built during that time
period was unique based on the statistics.

The total registered tonnage 19 of steam ships in 1869, the year the Carnatic wrecked on Abu Nuhâs Reef amounted to only
11.3% of the total registered tonnage of all vessels within the UK. P&O, one of the leading passenger and mail cargo
companies represented less than 0.03% of that total. 20

Figure 3. S.S. Peshawur was built in 1871, less than a decade after the S.S. Carnatic. Some of Peshawur’s cargo holds shown here were built as cabins to hold 164 1
class and 52 2 class passengers. Built by Caird & Co. Tonnage comparison: Carnatic’s 2,014 gross tons, Peshawur’s 7,942.67 gross tons (NMM, P&O/61/11,
photograph by author).

This is the registered tonnage within the United Kingdom under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 (effective starting 1855).

This calculation was made by using the P&O fleet list, which gives the companies total tonnage yearly (NMM, P&O/43/3; O&O/60/20; P&O/64/11).

The increase was not only sparked by the technological advances in marine
steam power or the efficiency of the screw propeller over the paddle wheel, but also
because of the economic demands that many companies traveling eastward faced
with the opening of the Suez Canal in November 1869 (Howarth, 1986, pp.100-
101). The P&O’s extensive investment since the 1840’s in the Alexandria to Suez
overland route had their income falling by £100,000 a year just two years after the
canals opening (Howarth, 1986, p.101). One of the major causes had to do with the
legal agreements made between the P&O and the Royal Mail General Postmaster
for the mail contracts, which specified that the mails had to travel the overland
route. P&O wanted to cut their costs and carry the mails through the newly opened
Suez Canal, but the Post Office refused. This meant that the P&O could not cut the
overhead costs associated with their established overland route. It was only after
P&O agreed to a £30,000 reduction in its mail contract subsidies that the Royal Mail
Post Office allowed P&O to travel through the canal with the mails rather than off-
loading them in Alexandria and reloading them in Suez (Howarth, 1986, p.101;
NMM, P&O/30/13; P&O/30/84). 21
P&O was the major steam company adversely affected by this event for
many years, but other cargo carrying ships were hit even harder by the opening of
the Suez Canal. The tea trade from China to Britain was based on the competitively
fast sailing passage around the Cape of Good Hope. This competition for seedy
returns with tea cargo lead to the increase in the building of composite clippers, not
only to compete with the wooden sailing vessels taking the same route, but also
with the rising steam powered vessels that carried both cargos and passengers
around the Cape of Good Hope (MacGregor, 1979; MacGregor, 1983a;
MacGregor, 1988b; MacGregor, 1993c; Gardiner 1993a). The Tea Clippers did not
have much competition from steamers in the tea trade prior to the opening of the
canal, because it was not cost efficient for steamers to travel around the Cape of
Good Hope, but once the canal opened the tea and other various trades were
opened to steam ships due to the reduced passage time through the canal. The
demand for speed around the Cape of Good Hope was diminished, and the worst
aspect of this historical event, was that the canal was virtually impossible to
navigate under sail. Therefore, the sailing ships’ career began to decrease with

The P&O collection at the NMM in Greenwich holds the ledgers with letters written between the P&O

Co. and the Post Office regarding this issue. Refer to NMM P&O/11/2; P&O/30/13 and appendix V.

tremendous economic and social affects for those who worked in the industry in
Britain (De Leppeps, 1875; Gardiner, 1993a).

Figure 4. The Illustrated London News clipping of the Suez Canal opening dated 20
November 1869 (NMM, P&O/98/7).

The opening of the Suez Canal was a monumental event that may political

leaders in Britain thought would never happen, including the P&O’s Board of

Directors, but French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps succeeded in building the

canal and impacted the history of 19th century shipping in as great of measures as

the marine steam engine or screw propeller. The Suez Canal opened trade from the

East, increased the demand for steam-powered vessels, and forced companies like

P&O to build larger and large steamers that could carry more cargo. 22 Eventually,

they had to sell off their older steamers that they had continued to build the ten years

prior to the opening of Lesseps canal; ships the size and tonnage of the Carnatic

because they could no longer carry the amount of cargo necessary to stay profitable

against the rise in competition for trade, mail contracts and passengers (Howarth,

1986). 23

Shipping in the 19th century changed dramatically between 1800 and 1875. It

continued to change as the development of the triple expansion marine engine took

place and the use of steel for marine boilers and ships developed (Sennett, 1885).

These changes can be associated with all facets of culture: economic, political,

social, and even symbolic. These dimensions, which are affected by time, are the

dimensions that define the field of maritime archaeology, and they are what we as

maritime archaeologists look at first to analyze the meaning of a shipwreck, not just

the construction of the vessel itself, but how all of this, including the archaeological

remains links to our understanding the past (Muckelroy, 1978; McCarthy, 2000;

Oxley et al., 1992; Green, 2004; Clark, 1990).

De Lesseps reported in his personal narrative that in 1870, 486 vessels used the canal equaling

654,915 gross tons and earned the Suez Canal company £206,373. In 1871, 765 vessels, 1,142,200
grt, £359,748. In 1872, 1082 vessels, 1,744,481 grt, £656,303. In 1873, 1173 vessels, 2,085,072 grt,
£915,892. In 1874, 1264 vessels, 2,423,672 grt, £994,375 (1875, p.X)
Howarth claims that the P&O had to sell “at a sacrifice about 40,000 tons of their older vessels, most

of which could not carry sufficient cargo” (1986, p.98). The Carnatic sank two moths before the opening
of the Suez Canal, and her sister ship, the Rangoon another Suez/India routed vessel a year after the
canal opened. Is it possible that P&O, soon to be facing financial crisis also scarified several of their
ships to access their underwriting funds in order to fund the building of larger vessels?

Figure 5. Digitally scanned original profile plan of S.S. Bangalore, 1867 (NMM, Brass Foundry, Denny’s Collection Nº 222)

Figure 6. Digitally scanned original profile plan of S.S. Indus, 1871 (NMM, Brass Foundry, Denny’s Collection Nº 146)



The Carnatic’s iron keel was laid in 1862 by the shipbuilding company
Samuda Brothers Limited, once located on the Thames in an area known as
Cubbit Town, Isle of Dogs London: their shipyard shut down in 1892
(TNA, BT31/3530/21537). When building began, the Carnatic was originally to be
called Mysore, but by the date of her registration— 24th March 1863 she was
officially named the Carnatic and owned by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company (P&O/65/91). Her price, according to original P&O account
ledgers was £107,013.10 (NMM, P&O/5/611).

Figure 7. Digital photograph (by the author) of a color printer of the S.S. Carnatic, 1863 (NMM, 1PAH9079).

Table 2: Dimensions and specifications of the Carnatic

Built 1862
Length 89.79m (294.7ft)
Beam 11.61m (38.1ft)
Length-to-beam ration 7.73
Depth of hold 5.36m (17.6ft)
Draft 5.64m (18.5ft)
Gross tonnage 2,014 grt
Net tonnage 1,254 nrt
Power 2,442 ihp
Propulsion 1 screw/ two masts
Funnel 1 Funnel
Max Speed 15.384 knots
Avg. Speed 12 knots

The ship was a combination sail and steam powered vessel, with one screw
propeller that had three blades. Specifications could not be found in the historical
record pertaining to the design of this vessels screw propeller, or which patent was
used. In addition to the technical specifications, the Carnatic was also built with a
bearded male figurehead. Because no lines, decks or profile plans exist of the
Carnatic, or her sister ship the Rangoon, the color print shown in Figure 7 is one of
the only documentary pieces of evidence available of this aesthetic feature that
captures the period of sailing ships. 24

Figure 8. Macro digital zoom of fig. 7. Figure 9. Bow of Carnatic (Gardiner et al., 1993)

On p.170 of The Advent of Steam: The Merchant Steamship before 1900 edited by R. Gardiner there

is black & white photograph of a ship, the Carnatic, that has been referenced simple P&O. All efforts
were made by the author of this dissertation to find the original, which should be held at the National
Maritime Museum Caird Library in Greenwich since it is the main depository for the P&O. The
photograph could not be found, even with the assistance from staff in the Plans & Photos Dept. located
at the Brass Foundry. The photo and the figurehead look vary similar to the color print except that the
arms appear to be crossed on the color print & are extended to the sides in the photo that cannot be
verified as the Carnatic.

By the 1870’s most iron ships built lost this feature in order to gain more cargo
and passenger space at the bow of the ship. The Bangalore, built by Denny Bros.
For the P&O in 1867 also has a figurehead, but it is a female according to the
profile drawings that exist. 25 In contrast to these ships and irrespective of who
built them, the Indus, also built by Denny Brothers & Co. in 1871 shows the
developmental change in the bow and the eventual loss of the figurehead in 19th
century iron steam ships.

Figure 10. Digital photograph (take by the author) of the profile plan of the Indus,
1871 (NMM, Brass Foundry, Denny’s Collection Nº 146).

The profile reveals a much fuller, rounder bow and no bowsprit; this
development in hull form can be associated with the transition to steam power
from the main mode of power of sail. The power of the marine engine developed

The National Maritime Museum’s Brass Foundry in Greenwich houses the original lines, profile,

Spar/Main decks and deck plans of the Bangalore. The condition of the sets of plans would not allow for
photocopying of the deck plans of the Bangalore but were available for viewing at the time of this writing.
The ships plans for the Tamar where also viewed by the author for construction comparisons between
the technologies used by the Samuda Bros. for merchant and Royal Navy ships in 1863.

to the point where the hull lines no longer needed to be sharply streamlined to
achieve speeds of 12 or 13 knots, and thus, the ships hull could be built fuller to
carry more cargo and more passengers; two demands that increased by the late
19th century that had to be met with efficiency.

The Marine Steam Engine

The marine steam engine operating in the S.S. Carnatic for the ship’s
entire period of service in the P&O was built by Humphry’s, Tennat & Company; it
was a four-cylinder compounding vertical tandem steam engine (P&O/65/91). Two
of the cylinders were 43 inches in diameter and the second two cylinders were 96
inches in diameter with a 36 inch stoke at 72 revolutions per minute according to
three new paper articles written around the time of her launching in 1863 (NMM,
P&O/98/7; P&O/65/11). This information can also be found at the Science
Museum in London, where they have a spectacular exhibit with a miniature-
operating model of the S.S. Carnatic’s marine steam engine. 26

Figure 11. The historical information provided about the S.S. Carnatic along with the 1:8 scale model of
the ships marine ship engine (The Marine Steam Engine. Museum of Science London,
photograph by the author).

It will be pointed out later from the photographic evidence taken during the archaeological
assessment survey that the full description given for the S.S. Carnatic in the display at the Science
Museum in London is not accurate regarding the screw propeller: there are three blades and not two.
This seemingly innocent mistake not only can mislead the general public but it can also confuse
researchers since no other historical documentation of the screw propeller design exists.

1 2

Figure 12. 1:8 scale model of the marine steam engine from the S.S. Carnatic. Both sides (The Marine Steam
Engine. Museum of Science London, photograph by the author).

(1) Identifies the jacketed high-pressure cylinder, (2) is the jacketed low-pressure


4 7

Figures 13. Right side views of the model marine steam engine of the S.S. Carnatic. Unfortunately the reflection of
light form the glass box, which incased the model, degrades the picture quality (The Marine Steam
Engine. Museum of Science London, photograph by the author).


Figure 14. Close up of the 1:8 scale model of the S.S. Carnatic (The
Marine Steam. Engine Museum of Science London, photograph
by the author).

(3,4) is the motion link rod, (5,6) are connecting rods, (7) is the screw shaft, (8)
are the superheated condensers & air pumps, (9) is the crankshaft, and (10) is the
rod directly from the low-pressure cylinder (above) to the air pump.
The link motion identified by in figures 12 & 13 were also discussed by
Holmes (1889, p.22) as being specially adapted for the marine steam engines
of that period, and renowned for its “simplicity, strength and durability.”
Humphry’s used the link motion in marine steam engines he was building for
ships of war and for the merchant navy.
Edward Humphry’s, like most engineers in the 19th century placed a patent
on any design or improvement that he conceived of relating to the marine engines
he built. Between 11 February 1860 and 4 March 1865 Humphry’s placed four
patents (two only provisional protection) on his marine engines and boilers.

Patent Nº 655 (11th March 1862) was only provisional at the time the S.S.

Carnatic was built, but most likely represents the design Humphry’s used for the

ships marine steam engine. The patent states:

This invention relates to that description of compound steam engine “in which two
cylinders, a small one, into which the steam first enters, and a larger one in which
it is subsequently allowed to expand, are employed, and i n which the pistons of
the cylinders are connected together by a piston rod passing through the cover or
partition which separates the small from the l arge cylinder. The improvements
consist in applying a trunk to the large piston and a suitable connecting rod, as in
ordinary trunk engines, to transmit the power from the two pistons to a crank on a
shaft or axis.”

Patent Nº 613 was one of the last listed in the Abridgments of Specifications
relating to the steam engine index (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Humphry’s Provisional Patent form Abridgments of Specifications relating to

the Steam engine: part 2, AD 1860-1864, Great Britain Commissioners of
Patents for Inventions 1871(Photograph by the author).

At the time of acquiring these provisional patents, Humphry’s had not provided
drawings to the patent office. Therefore, the engineering specifications and
description given by George Holmes, secretary of the Institution of Naval
Architects will be used for investigating the machinery that was once on board the

S.S. Carnatic along with the writings from several other engineers from the 19th
century who wrote treatises on the subjects of marine steam engines and screw
Holmes (1889, p.58) praised the inverted compounding steam engine as a
satisfactory engine for mercantile ships. Holmes (1889, p.58) also points out that
mercantile vessels mostly used the horizontal engine until about 1860 (figure 18).
During this same time Humphry’s was filing for multiple patents on steam engine
improvements. It’s worth noting that the inverted type of marine steam engine was
also called the steam hammer because of the cylinder arrangement standing above
the screw-shaft as seen in the in figure 16 (Holmes 1889, p.58; Sennett, 1885;
Main, 1865).

Figure 16. Side elevation illustration of a mid-1800’s inverted cylinder marine steam engine (From Holmes, 1889,

Figure 17. Excerpt describing in words the benefits of Humphry’s tandem compounding marine steam
engine accompanied by a simplistic line drawing of its mechanical arrangement (From Main,
1865, p.163, photograph by the author).

It is also apparent from figure 16 that these engines were not confined below the
water line as was the horizontal marine steam engine found in many of the Royal
Navy Steam Ships that were being built at that time. The requirements for Royal
Navy Ships had a lot to do with the fact that the vessels also had to carry guns
and therefore, to maintain the vessels stability the marine engine needed to be
confined below the waterline. Even more importantly, this left the decks above
the water free for the required guns (Holmes, 1889; Murray. 1868; Sennett,
Holmes (1889, p.58) states that “one of the great advantages of this class [of
engines] over the horizontal engine is that the cylinders and pistons wear much
better, for, with the latter type, a great proportion of the weight of the piston has
to be borne by the lower half of the cylinder, which consequently has a tendency
to wear unevenly.”

Figure 18. Model of the horizontal direct-acting marine steam engine built by Messrs. Humphry’s & Tennant
in 1864 for the coastal defense armour-plated turret ship the Prince Albert. Scale 1:12 (The Marine Steam
Engine. Museum of Science London, photograph by the author).

The main benefit mercantile shipping companies like P&O gained from the use of
a vertically arranged steam engine rather than a horizontally arranged engine
was purely economic; and not from a coal burning efficiency differential, but from
the cost of repairing the engines, replacing unevenly worn pistons, and the cost
of labor and down time to do this (Sennett, 1885). While this was noted by
naval engineers such as Sennett (1885) and Holmes (1889) twenty years after
the use of vertical marine engines began, the actual economic benefit was not
known in the early 1860’s and many merchant shipping companies preferred to
continue to use the horizontal marine engine.

The marine engine built for the S.S. Carnatic is also a representation of
another change in marine engine design that took place during the time period of
her building that was not yet a standardized method of engine construction, but
would eventually dominate the design of marine engines by the end of the 19th
century. The early 1860’s began to see a shift from the old geared engines, like the
second engine installed in the S.S. Great Britain, to what was installed in the
Carnatic: a direct-acting engine that connected the crank shaft directly to the screw
shaft (Holmes, 1889, pp.50-55; Sennett, 1885). The inverted vertical tandem
machine arrangement and the direct-acting method of power are two very notable
technological advancements in the marine steam engine. These changes followed
the greatest change that contributed to the increase in steam ship construction and
use in the mid 19th century and that was the invention of the double expansion
engine (Holmes, 1889; Gardiner 1993; Sennett, 1885; Bourne, 1867).
Prior to double expansion, fuel efficiency was a major fact in the slow
development of the use of steam. Very few mercantile companies could stay
profitable or in business due to the cost of coal for fuel (Howarth, 1986). In the
early years of steam power, like the P&O’s fleet of seven steamers in 1837,
boasting two of the “largest and most powerful ships afloat”, the Don Juan and the
Tagus, survival was contingent on government mail contracts (Howarth, 1986,
pp.16-19). The P&O was one company that was able to ride out the high expense
of the cost of coal due to inefficient marine steam engines solely based on the
subsidies it received for the mail contracts. Eventually, the marine steam engine
would improve dramatically and by the time the Carnatic was afloat the average
fuel used on a ship like the Carnatic was 2 lbs of coal per horsepower per hour at
12 knots (Holmes, 1889, pp.78-81)

Figure 19. This illustration shows a vertical tandem direct acting marine steam engine, the pistons inside
the high & low pressure cylinders, and the condenser (From Holmes 1889, p.76, photograph by
the author).

The combination of double expansion along with surface condensers
improved the fuel efficiency greatly (Main, 1865; Sennett, 1885; Holmes, 1889).
Robert Murray (1868) an engineer and a surveyor for the Board of Trade wrote that
from 1859 until the date of his publication in 1868 that surface condensation had
made “vast progress” and contributed to the overall fuel efficiency of the marine
steam engine. Murray (1868, p.31) states: “the moment of decisive advance was
perhaps that of the starting of the Moultan for the Peninsular and Oriental
Company, with engines on this principle by Messrs. Humphrey’s & Durrant, with the
immediate and permanently sustained result of an economy of fuel amounting to
about one-fifth that previously consumed for like performances. Murray attributes
much of this efficiency to the surface condensers. 27
This review of the S.S. Carnatic’s marine steam engine is by no means an
exhaustive review of 19th century marine steam engines for screw-propelled
vessels. 28 However, it does help to built a case for future in situ archaeological
study of the ship wreck sites to record what material artifacts remain, and to support
the reasoning behind implementing a long-term CRM plan for the submerged site of
the Carnatic.

Lamb & Summers Marine Boiler

The boilers built for the Carnatic were of the sheet flue type. The boilers
were patented and built by Lamb and Summers of Southampton. Murray (1868,
pp.25-34) stated that “ they [the sheet flue boiler] appear to posses some
advantages over the tubular boiler, the surfaces in contact with water being more
easily kept clean and free of deposit, the joints requiring but little attention to keep
them tight and in good repair, and their flues are certainly more durable than either
brass or iron.”

Before surface condensation, when boilers were feed salt water directly and worked at “pressures

above 35 lbs per square inch the sulphate of line contained in the sea water would be deposited on the
inside surfaces of the boiler” and create a barrier that was a “non-conductor of heat”. Thus demanding
more fuel (coal) to be burnt to create higher degrees of heat. For further analysis of the surface
condenser see Marine Engines & Boilers (Holmes, 1889, p.62).
For an in-depth comprehensive review of the marine steam engine up to and including the triple
th st nd th
expansion engine refer to this 19 century authors: Sennett, Richard 1 ed 1882, 2 ed 1885, 5 ed
1900; Main, Thomas 5 ed 1885; Evers, Henry 1887; Bourne, John 1867 and 1870. The leading
contemporary author of our time on 19 century steam ships is MacGregor, David 1979, 1983, 1988,
1993 and Gardiner, Robert 1993.

Figure 20. Provisional Patent for the sheet flue boiler designed by Lamb. Abridgments of
Specifications relating to the Steam engine: part 2, AD 1860-1864, Great Britain
Commissioners of Patents for Inventions 1871 (Photograph by the author).

Figure 21. Illustration of a Lamb and Summers’ Patent Sheet flue boiler in H.M.S. Troop ship
Himalaya (From Murray, 1868, p.86. Photograph by the author).

The sheet flue boiler did take up 1/3 more space than the tubular boilers but they
made up for this by being more economical in regards to cost and repairs
because they were more durable than the tubular boilers (Murray 1868, p.34).

The Carnatic’s Screw Propulsion

A review of the Carnatic and it’s place in socio-cultural history, and as UCH
would not be complete without at the very least a brief review of her method of
propulsion and it’s role in 19th century iron hulled steam ships. The previous chapter
set the context for a historical archaeological analysis of the Carnatic, which has
been the purpose of this chapter. This section is an attempt to tie together the final
historical materials before analysis of the archaeological remains that were
investigated of the Carnatic are presented in Chapter VII.
The Carnatic’s career began in 1863 for the P&O Steam Navigation Co. By
this time, the screw had taken over for the paddle wheel in almost all ocean-going
vessels built in Britain (Sennett, 1885; Holmes, 1889). But the history of the screw
propeller and it’s various successes and failures spans the entire early 1800’s. After
Dr. Shorter’s 1802 experiment with the screw, the most notable experiments to
follow were the comparative analyses done between the paddle wheels and the
screws in the 1840’s (Sennett, 1885). The experiments between the Archimedes
screw and a paddle wheel packet boat increased interest in the screw as a method
of propulsion (Sennett, 1885; Bourne, 1867; Gardiner, 1993a). But just like the
marine engines, and the marine boilers, the screw propeller underwent many
different designs, and it was only through trail and error that efficiency was finally
met near the end of the 19th century. Despite at times there being screw propeller
designs that were less efficient than others Sennett (1885, p.9) notes, “The
adoption of the screw propeller in lieu of the paddle wheel was the most important
step taken in the progress of marine engineering”. And by his own time, Sennett
states that “at the present day it [the screw propeller] is almost solely employed for
marine propulsion, the paddle wheel only being applied to special cases” i.e.
riverboats, channel ferries etc.
The review of literature on the subject of screw propulsion supports the
authors claim that there existed a wide diversity of designs, and the one used on the
Carnatic is only one of many that were employed in the 19th century. There was no
typical screw blade that was employed until the 1860’s. When Griffith’s introduced
his patent it became a popular alternative to the propeller blades in use, but the
technology was quickly surpassed by new designs (Murray, 1868). His design
employed three-blades that were wider at the base that at the tip. Figure 26 is an
illustration of Griffith’s patent. Murray (1868, p.144) purports that this design is “the

best modification of the common screw to date. Later designs would make this type
of screw blade obsolete, but experiments proved it to be more efficient than many of
the other designs being employed at that time.

Figure 23. This two-blade spoon cup propeller

Figure 22. A two-blade screw propeller (From was patent by G. Peacock in 1855 (Science
Murray, 1868, p.142, photograph by Museum London, photograph by author).
the author).

Figure 24. Display of various types screw propellers; each one Figure 25. Maudslay’s feathering screw
with a different blade shape and a different pitch (From Murray, 1868, p.149,
(Science Museum London, photograph by author). photograph by the author).

Amongst the many documentary errors the author found in researching the
Carnatic, it was no surprise to find little, if any details about the type of screw
employed on this vessel. The P&O online Encyclpaedia Peninsular (2003)
describes it as a “one screw” with no details as to what type of blade the Carnatic
actually employed during the 5 1/2 years of service on the Suez/India route. The
Times reported on 20 April 1863 “she is propelled by a two-bladed screw, with the
leading corners cut off diameter 16 ft. and 23 ft. pitch”. This is the same
information provided by the Science Museum in London (Figure 11). This
information is plausible and used as a primary source of information since no
survey documents, lines plans, or profile plans exist of the ship stating and
showing that originally she was fitted with a two-bladed screw and later modified
with a blade similar to the Griffith’s patent, but there seems to be no financial
transaction for a propeller change in the P&O account ledgers which are very
accurate with regards to the replacing of machinery. 30
According to the archaeological remains of the ship, it is conclusive that this
information is misleading and incorrect. The results of the investigation lead the
author to purport that the blade must have been changed sometime during the
Carnatic’s service or was incorrectly reported form the onset, and that the blade
which is now a piece of material cultural lying on the sea floor in the Straits of
Gubal, is of the Griffiths’ patent type (Figure 26).

Figure 26. Drawing of Griffiths’ three-bladed propeller. The centers of the blades are hollow and trails
showed that this reduced the absorption of screw power by 20% (Murray, 1868, p.144).

See appendix XI for full historical account of the shipwreck as reported by the P&O.

The National Maritime Museum’s Caird Library in Greenwich holds these ledgers, and on of the only

records found of machinery replacements was a new set of boilers purchased in 1865 for £5100. (NMM,
P&O/60/4; P&O/5/611). See appendix VI.

These findings will be evaluated in Chapter VII, but it is worth noting at this
juncture since the topic currently being reviewed is the Carnatic’s screw propeller.

Carnatic: An Iron Ship

The last aspect to be reviewed in the historical construction of the Carnatic

as a mid 19th century combination steam and sail powered iron with one screw
propeller vessel is the hull and frame design. The historical record pertaining to the
Carnatic specifically on this subject is nil, since all ships’ plans are lost, but the
Annals of Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping does provide general
details on the requirements for iron built ships. Even though the Carnatic wasn’t
listed in the Lloyd’s of London Register because P&O were their own underwriting
company, it is plausible to conclude that the Carnatic was built to the highest
survey standards, since it was employed for the government carrying the Royal
Mail and government species.

Figure 27. Lloyd’s specifications for iron built ships, 1863

(NNM, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1863).

Figure 28. Lloyd’s specifications for iron built ships, 1863 (NNM, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1863).

Figure 29. Lloyd’s specifications for iron built ships, 1863 (NNM, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1863).

Figure 30. Lloyd’s specifications for iron built ships, 1863 (NNM, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1863).

Figure 31. Lloyd’s specifications for iron built ships, 1863 (NNM, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1863).

Figure 32. Illustration by John Price of Sunderland showing the results of the comparative merits of the rules for constructing iron ships between Lloyd’s and
Liverpool Underwriters (Price, 1867, pp. 60, 61).

The specifications listed by Lloyd’s can be used as a general guide to the hull
and frame construction of the Carnatic (Fairbairn, 1865). Unlike the differences in
engine machinery, screw propulsion and screw blades, steering, boilers, and other
parts of the ship that make up the whole, the framing and skin of the ships’ hull varied
much less due to Lloyd’s requirements for ship registry.
That is not to say the Lloyd’s specifications were exclusively used in building
iron ships. 31 If a shipping company or ship owner wanted their particular vessel
insured by Lloyd’s then their vessel had to meet Lloyd’s specifications. P&O however,
were their own Underwriters 32 and set funds aside to insure their ships, so it was not
a requirement that they adhere specifically to purchasing ships that were built to
Lloyd’s requirements (NMM, P&O/64/4; P&O/60/4; P&O/60/20). The final conclusion
is that it is best to have the original ships’ plans for any survey, but when this vital
information is lost through time, it only strengthens the argument that a full in situ
survey of a wreck site such as the Carnatic’s should be undertaken.

See figure 32. The illustration in Figure 32 is from a book published by the Institute of Engineers in

Scotland and is a comparative analysis of the Lloyd’s and the Scottish iron ship specifications.
See appendix VI.

The Carnatic’s Career

This section covers the historical data pertaining to the Carnatic’s 5 ½ year
career before she sank. 33 The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
employed the Carnatic from the time the ship came of the stocks to the wrecking near
Shadwan Island. During the Carnatic’s career she was captained by 13 different men,
all well experienced captains, including Captain Jones, the captain that was in charge
of the ship when it struck the reef just north of Shadwan Island (NMM, P&O/40/10;
P&O/40/11; P&O/40/12; P&O/40/13).

Figure 33. This map shows the Eastern Hemisphere and the major routes the Carnatic followed during the
5 ½ years service as a mail, cargo, and passenger steamer for the P&O. The Carnatic rounded the Cape of
Good Hope only once, on her out-bound journey from Southampton to the East (routes drawn by the author
from P&O/4010; P&O/40/11; P&O/40/12; P&O/40/13).

See appendix II for the Carnatic’s 5 ½ years of ship movements, including the P&O logbook account from

the captain of S.S. Samutra on 14 Sept. 1869. See appendix III for original signed crew lists from 1863 and

P&O had already been employing steam vessels from Suez to the Far East
since the 1840’s, so the routes for the Royal Mail Packets, and the dates of pick-up and
delivery, which were a crucial element in acquiring the mails contracts were already
established by the time the Carnatic entered into the Suez/India Route (NMM,
P&O/30/37; Howarth, 1986).

Figure 34. 1861 Suez and the Mauritius Mail contract between Her Majesty’s Postmaster
General and the P&O (NMM, P&O/30/37, photograph taken by the author).

The importance of these schedules has been noted by several author’s (Howarth, 1986;
Gardiner, 1993a; McCarthy, 2000) as one of the main reasons for the early success of
P&O steamer’s in acquiring mail contract’s. It was their ability to create and maintain a
schedule that was predicable that provided the company with the contract subsidies that
kept the company afloat in times of increasing costs of coal. And unlike the sailing
vessels, which were at the mercy of the winds, a ship powered by coal could guarantee a
specific date of arrival, and in P&O’s case, if that date was not met the company incurred
fines by the Postmaster General (Howarth, 1986; NMM, P&O/11/2; P&O/30/84;

That maybe one of the reasons P&O tested the Carnatic’s sea worthiness in the
Mediterranean before sending the vessel around the Cape Of Good Hope to begin
service on the Suez/India Route schedule. In the first quarter of the Carnatic’s
service to the P&O, she was placed on the Mediterranean side of the route to the East,
making stops at Gibraltar, Malta and finally Alexandria, where she no doubt picked up
passengers and mail returning from China and India (NMM, P&O/40/10; P&O/40/11).
Eventually, the Carnatic rounded the Cape of Good Hope to begin a career on the
eastern side of the P&O mail packet and passenger route. This is also where, in the
Straits of Gubal the Carnatic would forever rest as a source of cultural
resources for archaeological investigation and a tourist diver site.
Figures 35-40 are copies of historical documents pertaining to the career of the
S.S. Carnatic and the P&O; for the reader’s personal review of a few of the primary
historical documents in existence before beginning Chapters VI & VII—site location and
the survey.

Figure 35. Table of passenger prices, dated 1861 (NMM, P&O/71/22, photograph by the author).

Figure 36. This is the first section of the first crew agreement for the Carnatic leaving Southampton for the Eastern Mail route on the other side of the African continent.
Captain Purchase was the first captain to be assigned to the Carnatic after Captain Burne who ran the Southampton/Alexandria route (MHA, 47298/1863/
J1/schedule C. This reference also contains the only surviving official log).

Figure 37. Signed crew list for the Carnatic. Top of the list, Captain Jones signature (MHA, 47298/1869/ A2/schedule C.).

Figure 38. Particulars relating to the wages and effect of seamen decreased during the voyage. This is an official list of crew members who did not survey
the sinking of the Carnatic (MHA, 47298/1869/ A2.).

Figure 39. These are the names of the passengers that did not survey the wrecking of the Carnatic, plus 15 un-named native crew members that
were also lost (MHA, 47298/1869/ A2).

Figure 40. An official letter referring to the wrecking of the Carnatic and the reported number of
deaths, which is also the official number of lives reported lost on 14 Sept. 1869 by the
MOT (TNA, M9/72; MHA, 47298/1869/P2).


Wreck Site of the Carnatic

The location of the wreck site of the S.S. Carnatic is approximately 2.5
nautical miles north of Shadwan Island (Gezîret Shâkir) where a reef exists that
is just below the sea surface at low tide. The geographical coordinates are listed
in several recreational diving guidebooks as 27°34.25’N, 33°55.75’E (Ghisotti,
2004, p.62; Middleton, 1999-2004; Buckles, 1995). Comparison of the
coordinates on multiple large area charts of the Red Sea from U.S.G.S. & British
Admiralty Chart #2375 (1999) confirms these coordinates.

Figure 41. Chart drawing (no scale) showing a view of some of Egypt’s coastal land,
Islands, and sea south of the Mediterranean. A red arrow indicates Abu Nuhas

Figure 42. British Admiralty Chart #2375 (1999) showing the depth soundings, shallow waters, reefs,
islands and contemporary shipping lane with strong southern currents. Scale 1;500,000
(photograph by the author).

Shadwan Island is located at the mouth of Gubal Straits where it meets

the Red Sea. The island is the biggest in the Northern Red Sea and is now an
Egyptian military zone with no access restrictions. One, of a number of reef
patches near Shadwan Island is called Sha’ab Abu Nuhâs, meaning copper reef
in Arabic (Collings, 1996, p.57). The Egyptians named Sha’ab Abu Nuhâs
this because of the cargo onboard the Carnatic when it struck the reef and sank.
It was the location of this reef, nearest the popular shipping lane, and its characteristics
that determined the Carnatic’s fate. The ship now rests at a maximum depth of 27m.

Straits of Gubal Oceanography

The tidal range near the mouth of the Gulf of Suez where Shadwan Island
and Abu Nuhâs reef are geographically located is approximately 0.6 meters
(Wikipedia, 2007)

At low tide Abu Nuhâs is approximately 0.5—0.6 meters below the surface of the
sea making it difficult to see on calm days because there isn’t the presence of
waves breaking over the top of the reef. But calm days are few in this location; in
the summer there are northeasterly winds through the Straits of Gubal and into the
north facing side of Abu Nuhâs reef. In the winter the winds switch directions, but
for this particular reef, the threat it has posed to ships over the historical timeline
has been the winds that blow directly towards the north-face of the reef. The
current powered by these winds pulls ships into the northern face of Sha’ab Abu
Nuhâs, and in 1869, the year the Carnatic struck this reef that is exactly what
There appears to be a lack of historical data pertaining to the tides and
winds that affected the Straits of Gubal in the 1860’s. The wind speeds and sea
conditions could be compiled from the logbooks of ships that used the passage at
that time, and the author attempted this, but the logbooks for the Carnatic are no
longer in existence in any archive and due to time constraints decided researching
for a different ships’ logbooks would not be useful for this discussion. Therefore, to
illustrate the average speed of wind near Abu Nuhâs the author has used an
online weather forecasting provider, which was also used in determining the days
to conducting diving at the site as well as to compile a weather profile covering the
period from January 2005 until August 2007. The nearest location a weather
reading is taken for use on this website is the town of El Gouna, which is located
to the west of Abu Nuhâs reef and as a coastal area is usually less windy than
further out into the Straits of Gubal. The information obtained from Windguru is
compiled from various forecasting models: 34

I. GFS Model: Global Forecast System

II. NAM Model: North American Mesoscale
III. MM5 Model: Mesoscale and Microscale
IV. WRF Model: Weather Research and Forecasting

These models are a collaborative effort between the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and the Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL). The model used in
Table 3 is a GFS Model.

Table 3. From the Global Forecast System Model (Weatherguru, 2007). Numbers represent
the percentage of days during that month that were rated at that number on the
Beaufort scale. The Beaufort scale numbers are represented by colors (see color
scale at bottom). Egypt - El Gouna, Lat: 27.37, Lon: 33.67, Timezone: GMT+2
Day Night
Month Wind - % of days with x+ Beaufort
temp. temp.
1/2005 14 43 21 15
2/2005 4 39 68 20 15
3/2005 10 39 71 24 18
4/2005 30 73 28 21
5/2005 3 26 68 30 24
6/2005 13 60 100 33 25
7/2005 39 68 35 27
8/2005 6 52 74 35 28
9/2005 3 60 93 33 26
10/2005 19 74 28 22
11/2005 30 63 23 18
12/2005 10 39 21 16
1/2006 29 68 19 14
2/2006 18 61 21 15
3/2006 3 23 55 24 17
4/2006 7 27 63 27 19
5/2006 26 65 31 23
6/2006 3 53 90 34 26
7/2006 35 87 34 26
8/2006 35 77 35 28
9/2006 57 83 34 26
10/2006 52 29 22
11/2006 17 60 22 16
12/2006 6 23 68 18 13
1/2007 3 32 61 18 12
2/2007 4 25 54 21 14
3/2007 16 55 68 24 16
4/2007 13 40 67 28 19
5/2007 6 39 71 33 23
6/2007 30 70 93 35 27
7/2007 26 68 36 27
8/2007 43 100 36 28
8+ Bft 7 Bft 6 Bft 5 Bft 4 Bft 3 Bft 2- Bft

From Table 3 we can extrapolate the mean average Beaufort number for the
month of September as a 4. A hydrographer and British admiral called Sir Francis
Beaufort created the Beaufort scale in 1805, and it is now commonly used to

indicate wind force (Met Office, 2007). Table 3 has been created to elucidate the
data in Table 2; for the understanding of the wind forces historically affecting Abu
Nuhâs reef.

Table 4. Beaufort’s criterion circa 1832. (from the Met Office, 2007).
Beaufort Wind Description Wave Sea
Number Speed Of Wind Height Condition
0 0 Calm 0 Flat
1 1-3 Light air .33 Ripples w/o crest
2 4-7 Light breeze .66 Small wavelets
3 8-12 Gentle breeze 2 Moderate wavelets
4 13-18 Moderate breeze 3.3 Small waves
5 19-24 Fresh breeze 6.6 Moderate waves
6 25-31 Strong breeze 9.9 Large waves
7 32-38 Near gale 13.1 Sea heaps
8 39-46 Gale 18 Mod. Waves, breaking crest
9 47-54 Strong gale 23 High waves
10 55-63 Storm 29.5 Very high waves
11 64-73 Violent storm 37.7 Exceptionally high waves
12 74-95 Hurricane 46+ Huge waves

Using Tables 3 & 4 it is evident from the small sampling over time that the area
near Abu Nuhâs reef during the month of September has a Beaufort number 4
approximately 60% of the month. This data provides strong evidence for the
conditions that may have affected the current flowing towards Abu Nuhâs reef
from the Gulf of Suez through to the Straits of Gubal and out to the Red Sea at the
time of the wrecking, as well as the following century after until our present time.

Additional oceanographic site information about the Gulf of Suez includes

the high salinity of the water. The Red Sea’s salinity ranges between 3% and
3.8%, making it one of the highest saline bodies of water on the planet

(Buckles, 1995; Wikipedia, 2007). The climate, which is dictated by two monsoon
wind seasons, is a result of the “differential heating between the land surface and
the sea (Wikipedia, 2007). The land that embodies the Red Sea is desert, and
the average air temperature in the summer is approximately 42ºC in the summer
with an average sea surface temperature of 26ºC in the Gulf of Suez; there is
approximately a 2ºC variation in sea surface temperature between the summer
and winter months making this a year round warm water scuba diving location in
addition to it historical meaning as a passage route to the East (Wikipedia, 2007).
The environmental conditions for the Gulf of Suez and the Red Sea have
been reviewed briefly. It is valuable scientific data used in oceanographic
sciences. The information based on these sciences elucidates the events that
occurred over hundred years ago, and events that have occurred in more recent
years with the wrecking of seven known additional ships between 1978 and 1983.

Table 5. Ships foundered or claimed by Abu Nuhâs reef (From Collings 2002, p.51)
Date Ship Name Cargo
Sept 1869 Carnatic Gold, copper & silver
May 1978 Marcus Granite floor tiles
September 1978 Seastar Refloated not at reef
December 1978 Kimon M Lentils
August 1981 Chrisoula K Tiles
January 1982 SanJuan Refloated, not at ref
April 1983 Giannis D Wood
February 1987 Olden Lentils

Most of the wrecks listed, including the S.S. Carnatic are now apart of the sea-
floor environment and have developed from a cargo-transporting vessel into an
artificial ecosystem and a recreational dive site (Riegal, 2001; Schuhmacher,
1977; Wilhelmsson, 1998; Wilkinson 2002).

The Site Formation Process

In the early morning hours of the 13th of September 1869, the S.S.Carnatic
struck an uncharted reef, now called Sha’ab Abu Nuhâs. That event was the first
in a series of events corresponding with Muckelroy’s model of the wrecking
process. Muckelroy purported in his model that before the first process of wrecking
occurred “a ship floating or sailing on the surface of the sea is a complex machine
containing a large number of constituent parts arranged in a specific order”
(Muckelroy, 1978, p.169). Chapter IV illustrated this with the historical
investigation of the S.S. Carnatic.
The ships’ marine steam engine and screw propeller was researched and
the information obtained was necessary for establishing the uniqueness of this mid
19th century steamship and the technology it employed. The patent boilers by
lamb and Summers were also included in evaluating the technological
achievements for shipbuilding in the early 1860’s. The period itself, and its
technologies changed so rapidly that one could argue that few ships had the same
marine engine design, boilers, screw propeller blade and hundreds of other parts
that make up a ship. That is why the earlier review of 19th century British Merchant
iron hulled steam ships and the Carnatic is conclusive evidence to support
Muckelroy’s statement that a ship is a complex machine. But, once a ship strikes
a reef, or begins to take on water due to warfare or strong storms, that well
organized complex machine begins to breakdown and this is the first stage in his
flow-chart of the process of wrecking (Muckelroy, 1978, p.169).


Closed system

Process of wrecking Material which

Floated away

Salvage operations

Disintegration of
perishables Material that

Seabed movement
On site Characteristics of

Seabed distribution

Figure 43. Diagram of Muckelroy’s evolution of a shipwreck (from Muckelroy, 1978, p.158)

This traditional model for the site-formation process was re-evaluated in 1996 by
Martin Gibbs (IJNA, vol. 35.1, pp.4-19) with the intent to synthesize the more
contemporary views with those purported in this somewhat archaic model. For
instance, Muckelroy’s model does not incorporate the study of documentary
sources regarding salvage (one of the tiers in his model), which Gibbs (1996)
purports can aid in the archaeological study of the sea-bed remains, or cultural
deposits as well as understanding the motives for undertaking or abandoning
such operations.

This re-evaluation of the site-formation process begins with listing two
classes of shipwreck sites defined by Gibbs (1996). The first being the class and
fate of the Carnatic: Catastrophic shipwreck. These types of disasters are more
likely to under go additional stages such as crisis salvage, survivor salvage,
systematic salvage, and opportunistic salvage before there is a chance to
properly record the cultural materials that remain (Gibbs, 1996, p.17). The
second type, which will not be discussed, is the intentionally deposited or
abandoned vessels, such a hulk. Gibbs (1996) examination of the available
literature at the time of his publication thus supports his thesis that there exists a
wider range of cultural processes that need to be extracted and expanded upon
for the archaeological record to create different data sets that can be used for
comparative analysis.

Table 6. Definitions of disaster response salvage (from Gibbs, 1996)

Crisis Salvage: is focused on easily removable cargo and contents for survival

Survivor &
Opportunistic Salvage: might have included cargo, contents, some fittings and minor

Systematic Salvage: is accessed at all levels and is usually the most formal and
structured salvage operation with the potential to remove the most
significant quantities of materials- even the whole vessel.

These stages of salvage, inherent in the disaster response model proposed

by Gibbs (1996) are particularly critical for analysis of the Carnatic wreck site.
When the Carnatic began to sink, there was a rush to gather the bags of mail
(crisis salvage). Saving the mail seemed to be on of the most important events
aside form saves their own lives. Prior to the ship breaking in half and slipping off
the reef, a large cargo of cotton bails was jettisoned to lighten the ship, which was
later used in the survivor or opportunistic salvage stage when the survivors
gathered the cotton bails to burn whilst stranded on Shadwan Island waiting for
the S.S. Samutra 35 to rescue them. Within weeks the last stage of salvage

See the end of appendix II for extracts of the account as recorded by the Captain of the Sumatra,

transcribed by P&O staff into the P&O ship movements ledger.

occurred when Lloyd’s of London sent Captain Henry D. Grant out on the Tor to
salvage the £40,000 species on board the ship (Collings, 1996). This type of
systematic salvage was documented by the Board of Trade and helps to confirm
what cultural materials are no longer present at the site. What is less documented
is how much of the cultural material that remained on the ship when it sank was
later looted (systematic salvage) by locals and recreational scuba divers once it
was discovered in the 1980’s, and how much of these materials were effected by
other post-depositional processes. All of this gives the maritime archaeologist a
more coherent understanding of cultural actions over time, i.e. the formation of the
present site and maritime culture & history associated with this vessel.

Environmental Factors Involved in Site Formation

Muckelroy’s site formation model, while applicable to almost all shipwrecks,

only addresses the environmental factors associated around the UK’s coastline
and/or other dark, mudding, cold water environments (Muckelroy, 1978, pp.157-
214). Therefore, while the application of extracting filters 36 and scrambling
devices 37 can be used in the analysis of the Carnatic site, there are considerable
differences between the environmental factors that contribute to these processes
of site formation. Table 3 already provides the scientific data relating to wind and
temperature in that region, which contributes directly to the rate of current that
affects the wreck site of the Carnatic. More recent studies have tried to establish
models based on various environmental factors and ship building materials
(Green, 2004; Gould, 2000; Barto et al., 1989; Clark, 1990). McCarthy’s (2000)
archaeological investigation and excavation of the S.S. Xantho was useful in
developing a model based on post-depositional processes that affect the
submerged site due to environmental factors. Given the authors limitations in time
and resources, direct sampling of the biological, physical and chemical parameters
(as shown in Table 7) effecting the Carnatic wreck site was not possible, but
general information of the Gulf of Suez and the Red Sea’s oceanographic

Muckelroy termed the three processes that lead to the loss of material culture at a wreck site as

extracting filters: 1) the process of wrecking, 2) any salvage operations, and 3) the disintegration of
perishables (1978, p.165).
Scrambling devices begin at the moment of wrecking according to Muckelroy, and include breakage

of the wreck due to seabed movement, which is caused by environmental factors such as current,
topography, and winds (1978, p.105).

environmental has been compiled from secondary sources, analyzed, and applied
to the final assessment of this pre-disturbance survey. 38

Table 7. A list of the biological, physical, and chemical parameters of relevance to the conserving
and managing of shipwrecks (from McCarthy, 2000, p.71).

Temperature: Water temperature is an important variable in determining the rate of marine growth,
corrosion of metal objects and the biodeterioration of organic materials.

Salinity: Water salinity has a pronounced effect on the stability of metal objects, ceramics, and
biological growth, e.g., bacteria an fungi that have a marked effect on the deterioration of wood.
Salinity, therefore, is an important factor to be considered and measured.

pH and dissolved oxygen content: Both should be measured on site where possible as they are
major factors in determining the stability of both inorganic and organic materials.

Water movement and purity: Wave action, water movement, and non-marine water sources nearby,
e.g., rivers, sewers, etc., should be recorded in view of their effect on Temp., Salinity, pH and
dissolved oxygen content.

Bottom-type analysis: This variable also needs to be recorded since it has chemical as well as
immediate physical effects on the wreck material and on the site itself. Samples of bottom
sediment should be taken with a view to analyzing microorganism’s present and mainly the
sulphate-reducing bacteria content with a view to their effect on organic material and artifacts.

Corrosion products and marine concretions: These are best initially retained, where practical, due
to their protective coatings, which help prevent damage of artifacts in transit and also for the
information conservators can gain from an analysis of the corrosion products and marine
concretions. Some marine concretions, however, harden considerably on artifacts such as
ceramics, and experience has shown that these are best removed soon after being taken from
the site.

The wreck site of the Carnatic would benefit enormously from the sampling
of the factors in Table 7. The non-intrusive pre-disturbance survey’s photographs
yield an extensive amount of visual data for assessment, but it are the affects of
the environmental and human factors surrounding the site on the sea-floor that will
determine when and if the ship will ever reach a state of equilibrium (Muckelroy,

For additional oceanographic and geographic details see U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological

Survey, USGS Open-File Report 99-50-A (

For a comparison of material survival rate in aerobic and anaerobic environments see Archaeology

Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice (1992, p.31).


The S.S. Carnatic has not been an unknown wreck site since that fatal
disaster in the early morning hours of 13 Sept. 1869 when the vessel struck Abu
Nuhâs reef and sank. The ship was positively identified as the S.S. Carnatic circa
1987 (Ghisotti, 2004, pp.64-71). Soon after it’s discovery and identification it
became a popular scuba diving site. There has been no real attempt to survey and
record this wreck site as a historical cultural resource to the knowledge of the
author. Recently, there has been interest in another well-known, WWII shipwreck
called S.S. Thistlegorm by sport diver members of the Nautical Archaeology
Society through their Adopt A Wreck Program, and the have implemented a wreck
survey and monitoring scheme, but have not yet published their findings. The
difficulty with these sites, which are located in the Egyptian Red Sea, is that they
have always been considered a major scuba diving tourist attractions rather than
cultural resources that need to be surveyed, monitored and reported on from an
archaeological and cultural heritage perspective (Barto et al., 1989; Spirek, 2003).

Origins of the Carnatic’s Identification

The S.S. Carnatic has been a recreational dive spot since at least 1987,
when Andrea Ghisotti (2004, pp.64-71) claims to have positively identified the
wreck as the Carnatic. Therefore, most of the archaeologist’s archival research for
the ship identification process was carried out by Ghisotti’s mother; with the help
of scuba divers Renzo and Mauro uncovering archaeological clues to help them
identify the ship (Ghisotti, 2004, pp.66, 67). Ghisotti states that “Renzo continued
his meticulous search of the wreck in the hope of finding more clues, and
eventually he did…the named started with a ‘C’”. He continues to write “I shouted
ecstatically down the line to him: ‘Carnatic', it’s the only ship still [sic] in the list that
starts with a ‘C’”.

Figures 44. (Left) A London soda water bottle made of tinted green glass and (Right)
a piece of plate made of Ironstone china (Photos by Ghisotti, 2004

Ghisotti’s (2004) publication on Wrecks of the Red Sea was one of the sources
that initially provided the author with information regarding the Carnatic’s history,
along with several Internet websites, which give a brief description of the vessel as
a recreational wreck dive site rather than a site of cultural material deposits (Tour
Egypt, 1999-2004; Vercoe, 2004). There was little variation between the accounts
of the shipwreck, number of lives lost, and general construction of the vessel;
except that Ghisotti (2004, p.65) stated that the Carnatic has a large three-bladed
propeller. Middleton (Tour Egypt, 1999-2004) described the ship as a composite “iron
framed [sic] planked ship”. It wasn’t until the authors own archival research that
many of these stated facts about the ship were revealed to be inaccurate. As it
was stated in Chapter III, the Carnatic is not a composite built ship. Yet, the author
discovered that there is even an inaccuracy in the historical documentation
compared with the archaeological evidence regarding the ships propeller. 41
Ghisotti (2004) appears to be the only source, primary or secondary that
accurately identifies the ships propeller as a three-bladed propeller.

Artifacts like these are no longer to be found at the wreck site of the Carnatic. Ghisotti noted that in

1987 there was an abundance of fixtures and fittings still on the wreck, along with wine bottles,
passenger’s personal items etc., and makes a plea for divers to leave everything exactly as it was
found. But from the recent photographic and video survey of the site, it appears that nothing apart for
the wrecks structure remains. It is possible that artifacts may be buried until the build-up of sand and silt
on the port side of the wreck, but an archaeological excavation would have to be conducted to make any
final conclusions.
Figures 79-81 show the Carnatic’s three-bladed screw propeller, rudder and fittings.

These inconsistencies, as relatively insignificant as they may seem to
many, still need to be rectified, and thus provided the author with the reassurance
that conducting an archaeological investigation was necessary and a useful
approach to analyzing the Carnatic from both the field of archaeological study and
the dimensions involved in cultural resource management. To ascertain the
validity of the information and details found before the survey investigation began,
the author contacted the writer of the Carnatic’s details for the Dive Site
Directory— an online directory of dive sites, and inquired how actuate the wreck
site map on the website. A meeting was arranged to discuss various details of the
wreck site and the difficulties of accessing the site by means of a small rib (R.
Vercoe, personal communication, February 2007). The meeting took place at the
London International Dive Show on 11 March 2007. Ric Vercoe, a BSAC
advanced instructor and former Red Sea Dive Master brought his own person
copies of an admiralty chart and pointed out the difficulties in reaching the wreck
site by a small boat like a rib. Most of the information he provided was useful for
the planning of the projects logistics. Mr. Vercoe also clarified in a later email
communication that the ships hull is iron and not wood as previously thought by
the author. Further reading into 19th century ships would also confirm the hull was
iron before the survey was undertaken (Gardiner, 1993a, p.105).
Therefore, the purpose of this survey was not to identify the shipwreck, nor
to correct any grotesques errors in the historical record, but rather to re-evaluate
the meaning of the ship as a significant and potential site for archaeological
survey, and to draw attention to the critical issue that if further recording is not
conducted, additional archaeological evidence pertaining to the cultural history of
the vessel will be lost.

Recordation and Survey

A non-intrusive survey of the S.S. Carnatic was undertaken by the author

(Janelle Harrison), Ali Ahmed Ali, and Kjell Nylund, two Dive Masters from the
Colona dive center in El Gouna, Egypt over a period of two days separated by
several weeks with a total of three dives on SCUBA. Due to the adverse wind
conditions, many of the local dive operators located in El Gouna, Egypt would not
make the trip to Abu Nuhâs reef for the dates 1 June to 30 June 2007. Several
other reasons may be taken into consideration; June through September is the low
season for recreational diving anywhere in the Red Sea, and the dive operators
require a minimum number of divers that want to dive a specific reef like Abu
Nuhâs before they will schedule a trip. The option of privately chartering a book for
300 euros a day was considered by the author, but without a permit issued by the
SCA to the author as the principle investigator of this site, the author would have
to be accompanied by a Diver Master or Instructor that held a permit to dive this
area recreationally and to have clearance from the Egyptian Coast Guard before
being able to leave the harbor. Privately hiring a Divermaster or Instructor that
holds a permit in addition to the 300 euros a day and the cost of renting tanks and
weights was too high per day to be a reasonable expenditure for the first
investigative dives of the site. If the SCA grants the author a permit, which is still
being reviewed by the SCA at the time of this writing, then the private charter
option will be re-evaluated for future work at the wreck site.
Dive Number one took place on 10 June 2007. The dive plan for the first
dive was to get familiarized to the site as well as obtain video footage and still
photographs in case the weather worsened and did not permit the author to return
on another day. The equipment that was used on all dives included: a 1-meter
folding ruler 43, an A-4 acrylic board, permatrace paper, a 30m measuring tape—
open casing, a Panasonic PV-GS320 digital video camcorder with 3.2 mega pixel
still picture capability fitted with a 0.45X macro wide angle lens, and a PRO 6 Wet
N Rugged Sports underwater video camera housing. 44

See pages 80-82 for authors dive profiles created with a Sherwood Wisdom dive computer and

The 1-meter folding ruler is divided into 6 parts: 18.5, 16.5, 16.5, 17, 16.5, 15mm used for scale.

See appendix I for the specifications listed for the digital video camera, and the 2 DVD’s of dives 1-3

made on the Carnatic for the purpose of analyzing the wreck site and documenting the survey work.

Figure 45. The author’s conception of the wreck site. All photographs of the Carnatic wreck site taken by the author.

Figure 45 is the author’s conception of the Carnatic site using the data that was
obtained during the pre-disturbance dives, including the one on 10 June 2007; the
second and third dives commenced on 24 June 2007.
Unable to complete a full survey using the DSM, the author was only able
to retrieve measurements that could be used to draw the wreck site area, and the
three major sections that the ship has become: the bow, amidships (the rubble)
and the stern. The length of the remaining intact portion of the stern keel was
measured. Another measurement was taken from the end of the stern keel to the
propeller blades, from the propeller blades to the end of the rudder, and finally
from the end of the rudder to the end of the stern at main deck level. The
wreckage and debris field located within the site area mapped is approximately
110m long x 36m wide x 11m high. The height is not the sea depth that the wreck
rests in, but rather, the beam of the ship turned on its side, since the Carnatic now
rests on her port side with the starboard side located 11m shallower than the port
side — this figure is closer to the original beam of the ship than the ships depth
because she rests on her side rather than up right on her keel. The width is the
result of four measurements: from the bottom of the reef to the stern keel at
amidships; the height of the ship calculated at the magical angle of 54.7°, which
compensates for the resting angle of the ship 45 on its port side; out to the end of
the main mast; and beyond the mast to what appears to be the end of the debris

Figure 46. The authors’ first drawing used for noting the measurements during the dives (after Ghisotti, 2004).

A Magic angle is a precisely defined angle, the value of which is approximately 54.7°. The magic angle

is a root of a second-order Legendre polynomial, , and so any interaction which

depends on this second-order Legendre polynomial vanishes at the magic angle

Table 8. A list of measurements that were taken by the author and used to construct the site
map in figure 45. Bare in mind the actual width of the ship wreckage is only an approximation
based on estimated values and a survey conducted using the DSM would greatly increase
the accuracy of the figures reported I this table.

Sections of the Wreck Site Length

Remaining intact Stern section 25.71m

Remaining stern keel 21.74m

From end of keel to propeller blades 0.86m

From end of propeller blades to end outside end of rudder 1.05m

Outside end of rudder to the end of the stern at main deck level 2.6m

Distance from reef to amidships keel 3.10m

Estimation of wreckage width based on original depth of 9.4m

Vessel and the magical angle

Length of main mast extending from portside of wreckage 19.98m

To the open sea

From the top end (deepest end) of the main mast to 3.62m
the end of the debris field

Remaining Bow section 26.52m

From Stem to end of figurehead mount & bowsprit support 3.51m

Amidships (the massive rubble area where the ship snapped 39.69m
In two before sinking) Also the distance between the two masts

From main mast to center of funnel 30m

Dive Profiles of the Principal Investigator (the author)




Survey Photographs

The bulk of the photographs were stills captured from the survey video
rather than switching the video camera over to still picture mode to capture the
large 3.2-mega pixel images. According to Dean (1988) photography surveys
play an important role in the overall site survey, but metric or imperial scales
need to be visual in the photographs to evaluate size and distance (1988, p.9).
Due to the time constraints of diving on one tank at an average depth of 23m,
and the necessity to gather as much video footage of the wreck site as possible,
the author was not able to stop and place a scale in all photographs. Additional
surveying in the future would yield more to scale measurements.


Figure 47: Two views looking down to the collapsed amidships nearest the bow
section with a clear view of the broken main mast.

Figure 48: A view of the collapsed starboard hull looking aft. To the left of the
photo is the reef.

Figure 49: View of the same section as in figure 48 but closer to the stern section,
you can see that part of the starboard hull has collapsed outward toward
the reef.

Figure 50: Unidentified object/artifact that may be part of the engine machinery.

Figure 51: Both photos are close-ups of figure 50.

Figure 52: Top and bottom photos may be of one of the Lamb patent boilers.

Figure 53: The hollow of the main mast, which was also constructed of iron and not wood.

Figure 54: Top photo is the broken lower section of the main mast whilst the photo below
it is of the 19.98m long section of the main mast.

Figure 55: Another view of the two sections of the main mast, clearly displaced.

Figure 56: Photo viewing the second mast and the stern section of the wreckage from the
port side and looking aft.

Figure 57: A section of the collapsed main deck amidships near the port side, center of the rubble
section. The 1-meter tape measure gives the scale of the spacing of the framing.

Amidships Under the Fallen Starboard Hull

Figure 58: Deep inside the tangled wreckage on the starboard side near the bottom of
the hull remains of the ships scantlings and wooden interior wooden skin
can be found, but this area is a tight squeeze.

Figure 59: Close-up of the starboard side scantlings covered in soot and concretion. Due
to the area being confined and the bottom covered in silt and the author holding
an underwater video camera housing, there posed too much danger in trying to
obtain measurements of the scantlings on this dive.

Figure 60: Top photo: The Carnatic’s one funnel is in the left of the frame, whilst the
second mast is in the background. Bottom photo: is a close-up of the funnel.

The Wine Rack: Under a Section of the Hull

Figure 61: The wine rack, which carried the hundreds of bottles of wine that contributed to the
locals naming this wreck “the Wine Wreck.”

Figure 62: At first glance the author believed this to be a gear wheel for the engine but upon further
investigation into the marine steam engine employed on the Carnatic, this became
implausible since the direct acting engine did not have gear wheels. The final conclusion
from the author is that it is in the right location to be the steering wheel form the
wheelhouse amidships.

The Bow Section

Figure 63: A view of the bow section just below the port side. The davits are hung covered with soft

Figure 64: The bow section of the 3 deck. The frames are encrusted in concretion
and the wooden planking of the deck has eroded away only to leave
jagged concerted bits.

Figure 65: The most forward bulkhead on the 3 deck level,
with a concreted door outline visible.

Figure 66: A view at the port side of the vessel from the 3 deck. The frames for the floor
decking of deck two are in the foreground, and objects can be seen on the bottom
(port side of the hull) between deck two and three.

Figure 67: This is a photograph of the 3 deck looking towards the bow section of the
ship. The camera has bee rotated 180° to achieve the look of an up right ship.
The silt and objects can be seen on the port side (now the bottom of the ship)
and remains of concreted wood paneling on the starboard side.

Figure 68: Looking aft from the bow on the first deck level. The wreck is now an
artificial reef that now only houses a wide variety of hard and soft coral, it is
also the home for a school of glassfish.

Figure 69: All three photographs are of the author taking a distance measurement from
the main mast to the start of the bow structure. The method of photography
was a video camera securely mounted to an object and left videotaping whilst
the author took the measurement.

Figure 70: The port side between the fist deck and the main deck. Objects can be seen resting
in the silt- some could be important artifacts. There is also a stonefish hiding
amongst the objects. One of the many dangers if an in situ excavation took place.

Figure 71: The first section of the ship the author descended upon was the bow; eager
to start taking measurements the author measures the figurehead
mounting: 240mm wide.

Figure 72: The mounting for the bowsprit: 530.50mm, which also provides us with
the actual base circumference of the bowsprit.

The Stern Section

Figure 73: The author measuring the size of the concreted remains of the first deck level floor frame
on the stern section of the wreck.

Figure 74: Looking aft at the starboard side and keel of the vessel.

Figure 75: Measuring one of the first decks portholes: 250mm. The historical account
claims that the salvage diver found a man’s head stuck in one of these
portholes trying to escape the ship as it sank.

Figure 76: Looking aft from the first deck the decorative windows at the stern are visible as
well as the steering mechanism from where the aft steering wheel once was
located on the main deck down to the rudder.

Figure 77: A view from above the main deck of the stern section looking down. The
concreted framing for deck level two can be seen.

Figure 78: Top: the remains of the aft steering. Was the steering wheel salvaged in 1869? Was it
broken off in a violent storm as part of the post-depositional process? Or was it looted? Was it even a
wheel? The ship was equipped with a hydraulic steering mechanism, perhaps it was just a lever that
moved from left to right? Archaeologists my never know without further investigation of the site.
Bottom: Same view from a distance.

The steering
lever ring for
the patented

The Three-Bladed Screw Propeller

Blades 1 & 2
are clearly

The rudder

Connecting pin


Figure 79: In the foreground is the rudder and in the background is the
three-bladed propeller.

Close- up
of the pin
with a

Figure 80: The connecting pin that mounts the end of the screw shaft and propeller to
the rudder appox.750mm in width.

Figure 81. View of the Carnatic’s Stern and Ali, also the cover photo (by the author).

The value of this non-intrusive pre-disturbance survey cannot be under

rated. Enough measurements were taken to start a site map to scale as seen in
figure 45. It will take many seasons of surveying the wreck site to fully document
the entire site area, but the main aims and objects that were set at the beginning
of this work were met. The material culture was used as evidence to support the
claim that the written word cannot always be taken as fact. It was the use of
archaeological data that proves either the Carnatic always had a three-bladed
propeller and the newspapers issued in 1863 were wrong, and thus, the
researchers at the Science Museum just collaborated with the historical
documents, or the changing of the screw propeller blade was not recorded in the
P&O account ledgers. In either case, the fact that the Carnatic shipwreck has a
three-bladed propeller has not historically documented properly until now is
material evidence that new discoveries can be made on shipwrecks from the


Analysis of Results

The results of the pre-disturbance survey recording amounted to several

hours of video footage for viewing and analyzing. The main purpose of this
survey was gather archaeological data for analysis and interpretation; to
create and continue to add to any measurements site map to scale of the
wreck site of the Carnatic. It was also carried out to propose excavation 46 of
any loose artifacts such as glass bottles, dish wear, cutlery, etc., that may be
located on or near the main site area under the permission of the SCA. The
disappointing aspect of the survey was to find that very little, if any of these
objects remaining, or at least, not visual to the naked eye (or camera). It is
possible that much of these items have washed away as part of the post-
depositional process, or Muckelroy’s scrambling effect. The surge that was
encounter on dives two and three on 24 June 2007 was the strongest the
author or Kjell (one of the volunteers) had ever experienced. This type of
surge over a century would have multiple affects on the site— erosion, artifact
movements etc. The survey yielded several observational results:
I. Possible danger due to environmental conditions of the area, i.e.
current and surge
II. Biological dangers: fire coral, stonefish, lionfish, blowfish, sharks,
barracuda, triggerfish, cone shells and auger shells.
III. Danger due to unstable structure of the wreck in areas below the
collapsed starboard hull
IV. Silting in confined areas
V. The average depth to work in is between 22-27m on SCUBA

While the author wishes to be the person who is granted this permission, the prospects of excavation

entails the help of many professionals. Any artifacts found would need to be properly cared for by a
conservationist and then preserved and housed. All this takes time and money and Egypt’s resource for
this is not as great as in countries like the UK. The author proposes that if Egypt did not want to house
any of the artifacts in a museum in Egypt that a scheme could be arranged with the National Maritime
Museum in Greenwich for these artifacts for an exhibition the author envisions in two ways: Shipwrecks
of the P&O or Shipwrecks of the Red Sea. Arranging conservation and storage is the main issue for
reasons not to excavate, but if any of the loose artifacts are still at this dynamic site, it is worth
consideration of preserving what is left for future display, education and public understanding.

These may not be the only dangers, but they are the most apparent. The
author, whilst taking a measurement from the funnel to the second mast
placed the tape measure and her hand only millimeters from a cone shell
without even realizing it until analyzing the video footage ex post facto.


It has been purported throughout this dissertation that further, in depth

surveying of the wreck Site of the Carnatic should be considered. There are two
main factors involved:

I. The first is project funding.

II. The site is currently a publicly dived recreational site that contributes to
the tourism economy in Hurghada.

Addressing the first issues: If the Egyptian Government or the numerous

organizations such as the INA or NAS will not fund a more complete survey of
the site, allowing for various methods of recordation such as sidescan sonar,
ROV technology, GIS applications such as Site Recorder 47 (used on the site of
the Mary Rose) with the use of an acoustic positioning system (APS) used to
“provide high accuracy positioning” 48 of material culture, basic hand held GPS
applications, and high quality digital photomosaics, it is possible to continue to
monitor, measure and survey the site on a much more basic level; such as the
methods implemented for this work. But at the very least, permission from the
SCA to install permanent control points and secondary points would be
necessary to obtain quality data for future use of 3D mapping (Holt, 2007).
The survey that was under taken in June 2007 has been titled a “pre-
disturbance survey” implying future excavation, and it is the authors contention
that some amount of excavation should be conducted, but as it has already
been reviewed, involves the processes diagramed in Figure 1: the social
institutions, the types of values attributed to the site, the context of these values
in today’s culture, and the public’s perception of this site. It also includes

See and



involving numerous professional that know how to conserve artifacts and a plan
for long term holding of any items retrieved from the excavation.
This brings the second issue to the table: That the Carnatic is currently
one of the most famous recreationally dived wreck sites in the Red Sea next to
the S.S. Thistlegorm and those located within the boundaries of Ras
Mohammed National Park. If the site were to become an archaeological
excavation site, even temporarily, it would be closed to the public during this
process. It is highly unlikely that the dive industry would suffer for a temporary
restriction of diving this one wreck. But would the entire reef including other
popular wrecks have to be restricted to recreational divers whilst a project
commenced given the close proximity of the wrecks? The answer is yes.
Therefore, the diving industry that functions in the Red Sea would lose several
of its most popular dive sites temporarily, and this could alarm many who make
a living form the dive tourist industry. That is why it is so vital to educate the
community (local, national, and international) about UCH and the need for long
term CRM plans.
The research undertaken for this work attempted to address several aims
and objectives:

o To investigate the historical record and archaeological remains of a

19th century iron, combination sail and steam screw powered ship that
wrecked in the Red Sea.
o To Research the current laws and regulations for underwater cultural
heritage in the Red Sea.
o To conduct an archaeological survey and to record the finds
o To compare and contrast the material cultural from the wreck site of
the Carnatic with the historical record of the Carnatic and of 19th
century iron screw propeller steamers in general.
o To analyze the evidence and contribute to the current body of
knowledge associated to the topics discussed in this work
o To document the wreck site using an underwater video camera, still
photographs and basic measurements to draw a scaled map of the

The aims and objectives were met to reasonable satisfaction for the
purpose of this work. New evidence from the material cultural of the Carnatic
supports the argument that whilst historical records are a vital source of
information for younger shipwrecks that fall outside of the cut-off date set by
Muckelroy (1978), as archaeologically worthy of the time, money, and effort to
survey and record, they (the historical documents) should not be the only source
of information. If a vessel is known, accessible and found to be of historical
interest and can provide the present and the future with a detailed archaeological
record then the work should be promoted to the social institutions that implement
UCH programs and CRM plans. This is particularly true in the case of iron ships
that corrode at a much faster rate than wooden ships. The timeline that has been
imbued on today’s society as signifying historical importance has to be re-
evaluated with this post-depositional factor as a guideline, and therefore, more
studies need to be conducted on the environments that these ships rest in, i.e. the
water salinity, water temperature, pH balance, dissolved oxygen content, etc.
The final conclusion at this time is that the Carnatic wreck site is a valuable
source of underwater cultural heritage, and should be fully surveyed and promoted
as one of the leading sites for a submerged cultural resource management plan in
the Red Sea. More resources 49 should be invested into promoting the site and the
ships’ history, with consideration of in situ analysis dedicated to the environmental
impact that rapid coastal developments, and increased diver tourism that will have
a long-term affect on the wreck itself and the environmental elements it is located
in. And finally, to recognize that there are continuous biological, physical, chemical
and human threats to the survival of what remains of a beautifully and uniquely
built 19th century combination sail and steam-powered iron ship, that will over time,
succumb to these threats and the data that could be retrieved now will be lost

These resources could be other public, non-profit, private (rarely done) and governmental.


Primary Sources

Carnatic (2003) Encyclopaedia Peninsular. [Internet] October. Available from:

id=1139> [Accessed 20 March 2007].

NMM (n.d.) (ADM/A/2971). Wreck Register. Greenwich, National Maritime


NMM (1862-64) (P&O/40/10) Manuscripts: Ships Movements, 1862-1864.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/60/4) Manuscripts: Ships Repairs. Greenwich, National

Maritime Museum.

NMM (1864-66) (P&O/40/11) Manuscripts: Ships Movements, 1864-1866.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1866-68) (P&O/40/12) Manuscripts: Ships Movements, 1866-1868.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1867-70) (P&O/40/13) Manuscripts: Ships Movements, 1867-1870.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1880) (P&O/30/84) Manuscripts: Royal Mail Contracts. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1870) (P&O/50/7) Manuscripts: Legal Matters, Insurance Policy.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1861) (P&O/71/22) Manuscripts: Table of Passenger Fares, India Route.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1869) (P&O/30/13) Manuscripts: Royal Charter Mail Contracts. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/50/6) Manuscripts: Legal Papers, Liability, Loss and Damage of
Life. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1860-75.) (P&O/5/611) Manuscripts: Ships Costs 1860-75. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/50/6) Manuscripts: Legal Papers, Liability, Loss and Damage of
Life. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1863) (P&O/65/91) Misc. Material: Carnatic. Greenwich, National Maritime


NMM (1860-1906) (P&O/17/1) Manuscripts: Documents relating to the Suez
Canal. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/43/3) Papers: Relating to ships movements, timetables,

distance, tonnage. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/93/1) Manuscripts: Framed documents, notice of fares Calcutta

Line. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1847-70) (P&O/89/10) Manuscripts: Ports, Places, Records, Overland

Route—Egypt Ports. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1840) (P&O/30/25) Manuscripts: Royal Charters & Mail Contracts.

Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/60/20) Manuscripts: Papers relating to design & Construction of

Ships, Specifications. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1843-53) (P&O/43/1) Manuscripts: Ships movements, passage times

opening of Calcutta/Suez run. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1860-1875) (P&O/3/6) Reports and Proceedings of Nautical Committee.

Greenwich: National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1867) Bangalore. The Denny’s Collection, No.222. Greenwich, National

Maritime Museum Brass Foundry.

NMM (1867) Indus. The Denny’s Collection, No.146. Greenwich, National

Maritime Museum Brass Foundry.

NMM (1837-1979) (P&O/62/5) Manuscripts: Fleet Lists. Greenwich, National

Maritime Museum.

NMM (1871) (P&O/61/11) Manuscripts: Peshawar Capacity Plans. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (P&O/64/4) Manuscripts: P&O Register & Dimensions. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1868-71) (P&O/11/2) Manuscripts: Government Letters. Greenwich,

National Maritime Museum.

NMM (1866-1929) (P&O/91/7) Manuscripts: Misc. Doc’s, Illustrated London

News, Conventions etc.. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum.

NMM (n.d.) (1PAH9079) Color Print: Carnatic. Greenwich, National Maritime


TNA (1873) (MT9/72) Official Inquiries into wrecks, casualties and collisions.
Kew, The National Archives.

TNA (1885-92) (BT31/3530/21537) Ledger of Stockholders and Letter of
Dissolution. Kew, The National Archives.

Secondary Sources

Lloyd’s (1863) Annals of Lloyd’s register: being a sketch of the origin,

constitution, and progress of Lloyd’s register of British and foreign shipping.
London, Lloyd’s.

Arnold, A.J (2000) Iron Shipbuilding on the Thames, 1832-1915: An economic

and business history. Burlington, Ashgate.

Babits, L. E. & Van Tilburg, H. eds. (1998) Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of

Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. New York, Plenum Press.

Barry, P. (1863) The Dockyards and the Private Shipyards of the Kingdom.
London, T. Danks.

British Admiralty and U.S. charts (1999) Red Sea and Gulf of Suez. International
Maritime Organization.

Clark, P. (1990) Shipwreck Sites In The Southeast Of South Australia 1838-1915.

Frenatle, W.A., The Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Inc.

Cleere, H. ed. (1984) Approaches To The Archaeological Heritage: A

Comparative Study Of World Cultural Resource Management Systems.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Collings, P (2002) Shipwrecks of The Egyptian Red Sea. n.a, Deeplens


Corlett, E (1990) The iron Ship: The Story of Brunel’s SS Great Britain. London,
Conway Maritime Press.

Dixon, J. (1989) Reassessing the Occurrence and Survival of Submerged

Terrestrial Archaeological Sites on the Bering Continental Shelf. In: Arnold, J. B.
ed. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings From The Society For Historical
Archaeology Conference. Baltimore, The Society For Historical Archaeology.

Dromgoole, S. ed. (1999) Legal Protection Of The Underwater Cultural Heritage,

National and International Perspectives. London, Kluwer Law.

Easterbrook, N. ed. (2003) Underwater Archaeology, History and Methodology.

London, Periplus.

E.C.H.O. (2006) National Legislation Protecting Egypt's Cultural Heritage.

[Internet] : Available from: <> [Accessed 10
May 2007].

Evans, D. (2004) Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards, Technology and the
Creation of the Victorian Battle Fleet 1830-1906. London, Conway Maritime

Fairbairn, W. (1865) Treatise on Iron Ship Building: its History and Progress.
London, London, Green, and Co.

Gaur, A.S. et al. (1998) Exploration of Steam Engine Wrecks Off Minicoy Island,
Laksadweep, India. The International Journal of nautical Archaeology, 27, pp.

Ghisotti, A. ed. (2004) Wrecks of the Red Sea. Vercelli: White Star Publishers.

Gardiner, R. ed. (1992) Steam, Shell & Shellfire: The Steam Warship 1815-1905.
London, Conway Maritime Press.

Gardiner, R. ed. (1993a) The Advent of Steam: The Merchant Steamship before
1900. London, Conway Maritime Press.

Gibbs, M. (2006) Cultural Site Formation Processes in Maritime Archaeology:

Disaster Response, Salvage and Muckelroy 30 Years on. The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 35, pp.4-19.

Gould, R.A. (1991) The Archaeology of HMS Vixen, an Early Ironclad Ram in
Bermuda. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 20, pp.141-153.

Gould, R.A. (2000) Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge,
Cambridge University.

Grantham, J. (1865) Iron Ship-Building: with Practical Illustrations. London, Virtue

and Co.

Green, J. (2004) Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. London, Elsevier

Academic Press.

Griffiths, D. (1997) Steam At Sea: Two Centuries of Steam-powered Ships.

London: Conway Maritime Press.

Higgins, C. (2007) Learning How to Map a 70-Ton Ship. The INA Quarterly, 34
(1) Spring, pp.11, 12.

Holmes, G (1889) Marine Engines and Boilers. Covent Garden, Chapman and
Hall Limited.

Holt, P. (2007) Site Recorder. [Internet] Available from:

<> [Accessed 15 March

Howarth D. & S. Howarth (1986) The Story of P&O The Peninsular And Oriental
Steam Navigation Company. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

ICOMOS (1996) Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater
Cultural Heritage. [Internet] October. Available from:
<> [Accessed 16 March 2007].

Lipe, W.D (1984) Value and meaning in cultural resources. In: Cleere, H. ed.
Approaches To The Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study Of World
Cultural Resource Management Systems. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, pp.1-11.

McCarthy, M. (2000) Iron and Steamship Archaeology, Success and Failure on

the SS Xantho. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Middleton, N. (1999-2004) The Carnatic. Tour Egypt [Internet] Available from:

<> [Accessed 1 February 2007].

Muckelroy, K. ed. (1978) Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press.

Muckelroy, K. ed. (1980a) Archaeology under Water: An Atlas of the World’s

Submerged Sites. London, McGraw-Hill.

Murray, R. (1868) A Treatise on Marine Engines and Steam Vessels. London,

Virtue and Co.

Nautical Archaeological Society (n.d.) Management of Archaeological Projects

(MAP II) Design Notes [Internet], Portsmouth, The Nautical Archaeological
Society. Available From
<> [accessed 10
March 2007].

O’Keefe, P.J. (1999) International Waters. In: Dromgoole, S. ed. Legal Protection
Of The Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International Perspectives.
London, Kluwer Law, pp.223-235.

Oxley, I. (1998) The Investigation of the Factors That Affect the Preservation of
Underwater Sites. In: Babits, L.E. & Van Tilburg. H. eds. Maritime Archaeology: A
Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. New York, Plenum Press.

Oxley, I. et al. (1992) Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and
Practice. Portsmouth, The Nautical Archaeological Society.

Price, J. (1866) Merts of the Rules of Llyod’s and the Liverpool Underwriters, for
the Construction of Iron Ships. Glasgow, William Munro.

Read, Martin (2006) Conservation I Nautical Archaeology. Lecture handout, Dec.


Riegl, B. (2001) Degradation Of Reef Structure, Coral And Fish Communities In

The Red Sea By Ship Grounding And Dynamite Fisheries. Bulletin of Marine
Science, 69 (2), pp. 595-611.

Science Museum (2007) Exhibit: Marine Steam Engines. Sci. Museum, London.

Sennett, R. (1885) The Marine Steam Engine, 2nd ed. London, Longmans.

Shipwreck Detectives (2006)Vanishing Ships of War. London, UKTV History [Re-

Aired on T.V. 5 July 2007].

Singh, H. et al. (2000) Imaging Underwater for Archaeology. Journal of Field

Archaeology, 27, pp.319-328.

Spirek, James D., Scott-Ireton, Della A. Submerged Cultural Resource

Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage. New
York, Plenum Publishers.

The Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology VIIIth Annual Conference. 1989.
Perth, (1989). Conference on Shipwrecks And Their Environments, Stanbury, M.
ed. Fermantle, W.A.

Trotzig, G. (1989) The ‘Cultural dimension of development’ –and archaeological

approach. In: Cleere ed. Archaeological heritage management in the modern
world. Boston : Unwin Hyman.

UNCLOS (2007) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. [Internet]
Available from:
pective.htm.> [Accessed 15 March 2007].

UNECSO (2001) Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural

Heritage 2001. [Internet] November.
Available form <
URL_ID=13520&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>[Accessed 15
March 2007].

Vercoe, R. (2006) Scuba Diving In The Red Sea. Dive Site Directory. [Internet]
Available from:
arnatic.html. > [Accessed 1 February 2007].

Ward, C. (2001) The Sadana Island shipwreck: an eighteenth-century AD

merchantman off the Red Sea coast of Egypt. World Archaeology. 32(3), pp.368-

Wilhelsson, D. et al. (1998) Artificial Reefs and Dive Tourism in Eilat, Israel.
Ambio, 27 (8) December, pp.764-766.

Wilkinson, C. ed (2002) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Australian

Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.

Young, C. (1867) The Fouling and Corrosion of iron ships: their causes and
means of prevention, with the mode of application to existing iron-clads. London,
London Drawing Office.




Captain 1st Officer Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract
Burne Johnson 1863 27 April 7:15 AM Left Southampton Dock
27 April 7:35 AM Made fast to W.I. Buoy
27 April 2:00 PM Rec'd Mails, 2:35 pm started

1 May 3:40 PM Arrived at Gibraltar, 3:50 pm mails left

1 May 7:25 PM Rec'd mails, 1 am, 2 am started
5 May 6:30 AM Arrived at Malta, 6:40 mails left
6 May 9:10 AM Rec'd mails, 10:10 stated
9 May 9:35 AM Arrived Alexandria, 10:45 mail left
12 May 11:30 AM Rec'd mails, 5:15 pm started
15 May 1:15 PM Arrived at Malta, mails left
15 May 7:45 PM Rec'd mails, 8:10 started
19 May Midnight Arrived at Gibraltar, mails left
20 May 1:00 AM Rec'd mails, 2:30 started
20 May - Extract 2:15 pm departed this life Mrs. Boyd, 1st Class Passenger,
21 May - Extract 7:30 am committed the body of the deceased to the deep
24 May 1:25 PM Arrived at Southampton, mails left

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract
Johnson 27 June 7:30 AM Left Southampton Dock
27 June 8:00 AM Anchored off Nutley
27 June Noon Started

15 August 8:10 AM Arrive at Galle

16 August 6:20 AM Started

21 August ***** Missing

Farguhar Johnson 9 October 12:30 AM Rec'd mails

9 October 8:30 AM Started from Calcutta
9 October 2:33 PM Anchored in
10 October 6:10 PM Pilot left the ship at Sandheads
13 October 2:15 PM Arrived at Madras, 2:45 mails left
14 October 2:53 PM Rec'd mails, 4:15 started
17 October 6:32 AM Arrived at Galle, 7:30 mails left
21 October 11:00 AM Rec'd mails, 5:15 pm started
30 October 1:40 PM Arrived at Aden, 1:50 mails left
30 October 6:40 PM Rec'd mails

5 November 6:28 AM Arrived at Suez, 9 am mails left

20 November 6:10 AM Rec'd mails, 7:15 started
26 November 2:20 PM Arrived at Aden, mails left
26 November 11:12 PM Rec'd mails, 11:40 started

6 December 6:15 AM Arrived at Galle, 6:40 mails left

6 December 6:20 PM Rec'd mails, 7:30 started
Arrived at Madras, 10:15 mails left
9 December 9:06 AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

9 December 2:30 PM Rec'd mails, 3:20 started

12 December 2:20 PM Rec'd Pilot at Sandheads
12 December 6:17 PM Anchored in
13 December 8:00 AM Started
13 December 5:15 PM Arrived at Calcutta, 6:30 mails left

Farguhar Johnson 1864 10 January 2:30am Rec'd mails

10 January 8:10 AM Started from Calcutta
10 January 3:30 PM Anchored at Culpee
11 January 10:00 AM Started
11 January 4:30 PM Pilot left the ship at Sandheads
14 January 7:30 PM Arrived at Madras, 7:45 mails left
15 January 7:20 AM Rec'd mails,, 7:30 started
17 January 8:55 AM Arrived Galle, 9 am mails left
18 January 11:55 AM Rec'd mails, noon started
26 January 3:35 AM Arrived at Aden, 4 mails left
26 January 12:20 PM Rec'd mails, 12:40 started
31 January - Extract 6 am John Palmer 2nd Class passenger died
31 January - Extract 8:15 am committed the body to the deep

1 February 4:00 AM Arrive at Suez, 8 mails left

4 February 1:10 PM Rec'd mails, 10:40 pm started
11 February 6:52 AM Arrive at Aden, 5:03 mails left
11 February 1:17 PM Rec'd mails, 1:40 started
20 February 9:25 PM Anchored in
21 February 5:30 AM started
Arrived at Galle, 6:20 mails left
21 February 5:50 AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

21 February 6:30 PM Rec'd mails, 10:25 started

24 February 12:20 AM Arrived at Madras, 4 mails left
24 February 11:30 AM Rec'd mails, 12:10 pm started
27 February 12:20 AM Received Pilot at Sandheads
27 February 12:55 AM Anchored in
27 February 7:00 AM started
27 February 6:15 PM Arrived at Calcutta, 6:30 mails left

Grainger Johnson 9 April 7:00 AM Rec'd mails

9 April 9:55 AM Started form Calcutta
9 April 4:00 PM Anchored off Culpee
10 April 10:05 AM Started
10 April 5:55 PM Pilot left ship at Sandheads
13 April 4:45 PM Arrived at Madras, mails left
14 April 5:30 PM Rec'd mails, 5:45 started
17 April 6:10 AM Arrived at Galle, 6:40 mails left
17 April - Extract 7:30 am Mr. E. Monell, 1st class passenger died
17 April - Extract 6 pm sent body of deceased on shore for burial
18 April 6:30 PM Rec'd mails
18 April 6:35 PM Started from Galle
27 April 10:30 AM Arrived at Aden, Mails left
27 April 8:40 PM Rec'd mails, 9 pm started

3 May 1:27 PM Arrived at Suez, 3:30 mails left

12 May 9:00 AM Rec'd Mails, 10;35 started
19 May 2:10 AM Arrived at Aden, 3:45 mails left
Rec'd mails, 10:35 started
19 May 9:50 AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

25 May 6:20 PM Arrived at Bombay, 6:40 mails left

Grainger Johnson 14 June 8:50 AM Rec'd Mails

14 June 9:20 AM Started from Bombay
18 June 11:10 AM Arrived at Galle, 3 pm mails left
22 June 3:30 PM Rec'd mails, 4 pm started
27 June 3:00 PM Arrived at Penang, 3:10 mails left
27 June 8:40 PM Rec'd mails, started
29 June 12:30 AM Arrived at Singapore, 12:50 mails left
30 June 1:00 AM Started

6 July 8:00 AM Arrived at Hong Kong, mails left

8 July 6:30 AM Started

22 August 12:40 AM Arrived at Bombay, 5:20 mails left

22 August 5:30AM Started
22 August 6:15 AM Moored ship at Mazagon

King Johnson 9 September 12:30AM Rec'd mails

9 September 12:45AM Started from Bombay
21 September 11:00PM Arrived at Aden, 11:15 mails left
23 September 10:10PM Rec'd mails, 11:15 PM 24th Started

2 October 4:35AM Arrived at Suez, 5:40 mails left

7 October - Extract 2:30 PM Mr. Bulter died
8 October - 11AM Sent the body on shoe for burial

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

12 October 7:30PM Rec'd mails

13 October 1:00 AM Started from Suez
20 October 5:30 PM Arrived at Aden, 5:45 mails left
21 October 1:00 AM Rec'd mails, 6:30 Started
30 October 8:30PM Arrived at Bombay, 8:40 mails left

29 November 9:05AM Rec'd mails

29 November 9:15AM Started from Bombay

Qugove Murray 3 December 9:15 AM Arrive at Galle, 9:20 mails left

6 December 8:45AM Rec'd mails, 8:52 started
12 December 11:30AM Arrived at Penang, 11:35 mails left
12 December 5:40PM Rec'd mails, 5:50 started
14 December 8:20 AM Arrived at Singapore, *:30 mails left
15 December 8:30AM Rec'd mails, 9AM started
19 December AM Blowing a hard Gale SSE Bar 29:41
The sea tumbling on board &
19 December 4:00 AM sweeping the side
19 December 6:00 AM Bar 28:80 Sea filling the main deck & cabins, drowning the horses and washing away ...the steering gear also gave way
19 December 6 to 8 AM Wind veered from SE to SE & SSW, blew a tempest. Found the ship could not be steered right before the wind
Wind moderating & sea going down but the Typhoon Port life boat; mail packets, horses, nearly all the live stock, are now
19 December NOON lost or left damaged.
23 December 10:50 PM Anchored in 5/2 first Green Island SE
24 December 5:30 AM Started
24 December 6:38AM Arrived at Hong Kong, 6:45 mails left
27 December 8:00 AM started
27 December 3:00 PM Arrived at Whampoa
11 January 9:45AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

11 January 4:45PM arrived at Hong Kong

15 January 9:25AM Rec'd mails, 9:35 started
20 January 11:30AM Arrived at Singapore, mails left
21 January 3:55PM Rec'd mails, 4PM started
23 January 1:40PM Arrived at Penang, 6:40 mails left
23 January 12:20PM Received mails, 6 PM started
27 January #:35PM Arrived at Galle, 3:30 mails left
31 January 5:55 PM Rec'd mail, 6PM started

1865 4 February 1:35 PM Moored ship at Mazagon

13 February 11:00 AM Started from Mazagon
13 February NOON Anchored off Apollo Bunder
14 February 11:25 AM Rec'd mails, 11:30 started
21 February 4:30AM Arrived at Aden, 4:40 mails left
21 February 12:15PM Received mails, started
26 February - Extract 10PM Mamet Ibrane (Seedee) died
27 February - Extract 6AM committed the body of the above, to the deep
27 February 3:45PM Arrived at Suez, 5 mails left

13 March - Extract 3AM Mr. William Macartney 1st Clss passenger died
13 March 11:30AM Rec'd mails
13 March - Extract Noon, sent the body of the late Mr. Macartney on shore for burial
14 March 8:30AM Started from Suez
21 March 12:30AM Arrived at Aden 1:05 mails left
21 March 10:05 AM Rec'd mails, 10:45 started
28 March 11:20AM Arrived at Bombay, 11:42 mails left
28 March 5:30 PM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract
28 March 6:20PM Moored ship at Mazagon

13 April 11:00 AM Started from Mazagon

13 April 11:35 AM Anchored Apollo Bunder
14 April 10:45 AM Rec'd mails, 10:50 started
21 April 11:15 AM Arrived at Aden, 11:35 mails left
21 April 5:30PM Rec'd mails, 7:20 started
28 April 1:35AM Arrived at Suez, 3 o'clock mails left

1 May 12:15PM Rec’d mails, 12:50AM 13 started

19 May 4:10AM Arrived At Aden, 4:20 mails left
19 May 10:08AM Rec'd mails, 10:15 started
27 May 11:25AM Arrived at Bombay, 11:45 mails left
27 May 4:20PM Started
27 May 5:12PM Moored ship at Mazagon

Gribble Dundas 1865 15 June 9:00 AM Rec'd mails

15 June 9:20 AM Started from Bombay
19 June 8:00 AM Arrived at Galle, 8:30 mails left
19 June 3:30PM Rec'd mails, 6:25PM Started
26 June 5:00 PM Arrive in Penang, 5:10 mails left
26 June 9:55PM Rec'd mails, 10:40 started
28 June 10:40PM Arrived at Singapore, mails left
30 June 9:15 AM Rec'd mails, 10:05 started

6 July 5:30PM Arrived at Hong Kong, 5:40 mails left

Captain Grainger took charge of the ship from Captain Gribble
Grainger Dundas 1865 8 July NOON

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

11 July 9:30 AM Hauled into dry dock

18 July 4:00 AM Hauled out of dry dock
29 July 1:50 PM Rec'd mails, 2:15 started

5 August 6:00 PM Arrived at Singapore, 6:12 mails left

7 August 3:50PM Rec'd mails, 4PM started
9 August 9:20AM Arrived at Penang, 9:35 mails left
9 August 3:00 PM Rec'd Mails, Started
16 August 10:15 AM Arrived at Galle, 10:25 mails left
17 August - Extract 1:30 PM Mr. Smith Passenger died
5:20PM Transferred the body of the late Mr Smith
to S.S. Madras for burial on shore
17 August 5:30PM Rec'd mails, 5:45 started from Galle
22 August 5:00 AM Arrived at Mazagon

Grainger Buckland 9 September 5:10PM Rec'd mails

9 September 5:35PM Started from Bombay
19 September 7:15PM Arrived at Aden, mails left
20 September 7:30AM Rec'd mails, 7:45 started
22 September - Extract 2:30AM Mr. Bell (1st class passenger) died
8 PM committed the body to the deep
23 September - Extract 7:30 AM Mr. Lucas (1st class passenger) died
1 PM committed the body to the deep
30 September 8:50AM Arrived at Suez, mails left

13 October 2:00 AM Rec'd mails, 6:20 PM started

14 October - 3 AM a Seedy (coal worker) died

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

6 AM committed the body to the deep

20 October 11:35 PM Arrived at Aden, 11:45 mails left

21 October 9:40AM Rec'd mails, started
29 October 11:55PM Arrived at Bombay, 1 AM mails left

Parish Dundas 1865 29 November 11:30AM Rec'd mails

29 November NOON Started from Bombay

6 December 3:25PM Arrived at Aden, 3:30 mails left

7 December 12:10AM Rec'd mails, 12:50 started
12 December 11:30 PM Arrived at Suez, 1:15 AM mails left
14 December - Extract 12:05AM Capiru (Iarcae) died
8AM sent the body on shore for burial
29 December 2:45AM Rec'd mails
30 December 8:45AM Started from Suez

Parish Dundas 1866 5 January 2:00 PM Arrived at Aden, 2:10 mails left
5 January 7:30 PM Rec'd mails, 7:50 started
13 January 5:30 Arrived at Bombay, 5:33 mails left
14 January 6:00 AM started
14 January 6:40 AM Moored ship at Mazagon

Rennoldson Dundas 1866 14 February 8:45AM Started from Mazagon

14 February 9:18AM Anchored off Bombay
14 February 1:16PM Rec'd mails, 1:33 started
Arrived at Aden, 6:06 mails left
21 February 5:53AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

21 February 1:06PM Rec'd mails, 1:26 started

Arrived at Suez, 12:10 AM 27th mails
26 February 9:05 PM left

12 March - Extract 5AM Charles Cole (steward) died

3:30 PM sent body on shore for burial
14 March 3:30PM Rec'd mails
14 March 8:50PM Started from Suez
20 March 10:18AM Arrived at Aden, 10:30 mails left
20 March 5:05PM Rec'd mails, 5:35 started
28 March 8:43 PM Anchored in to fuel
29 March 7:00 AM Started

29 April 8:57AM Started form Mazagon

29 April 9:35AM Anchored off Bombay
29 April 12:24PM Rec'd mails, 12:40 started

7 May 9:50 Arrived at Aden, mails left

7 May 6:00 PM Rec'd mails, 6:20 started
13 May 10:55PM Arrived at Suez, 11:30 mails left
27 May 6P PM Rec'd mails, 3:34 AM 28th started

1 June - Extract 2PM Mr. Bremsue (1st class passenger) died

6PM committed the body to the deep

3 June 4:45AM Arrived at Aden, 5 mails left

3 June 1:00 PM Rec'd mails, 1:17 started
8 June - 9:15AM a private in the Native Military died

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

10AM committed the body to the deep

11 June 12:45AM Arrived at Bombay, 1:27 mails left
11 June 5:20AM Started
11 June 5:55AM Moored ship at Mazagon

10 July 8:45AM Started from Mazagon

10 July 9:14AM Anchored off Bombay
10 July 9:34AM Rec'd mails, 10th started
12 July - Extract 7AM, Mr. F. White (2nd class passenger) died
4PM committed the body to the deep
21 July 4:08PM Arrived at Aden, 4:20 mails left
21 July 11:50PM Rec'd mails, 2:30 AM 22nd started
27 July - Extract 1PM Mr. Cayzer (1st class passenger) died
3:20PM committed the body to the deep
28 July 3:29PM Arrived at Suez, 4:15 mails left

12 August 9:45AM Rec'd mails, 10:35 started

17 August 11:40AM Arrives at Aden, 11:55 mails left
17 August 5:00 PM Rec'd mails, 5:53 started
Anchored Apollo Bunder, midnight
23 August 11:25PM mails left
24 August 5:45AM Started
24 August 6:30AM Moored ship at Mazagon

Rennoldson Johnson 1866 14 October 9:00 AM Started from Mazagon

14 October 9:35AM Anchored off Bombay
14 October 10:15AM Rec'd mails, 10:20 started
Arrived at Aden, 8 mails left
21 October 7:40 PM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

22 October 5:25AM Rec'd mails, 5:35 started

25 October - Extract 10:35PM Capt. Forbes 3 Rg. N.I. Died
26 October 7:35AM committed the body to the deep
29 October 5:56AM Arrived at Suez, 6:50 mails left

13 November 7:05PM Started (9PM 12th Rec'd mails)

20 November 5:35AM Arrived at Aden, 5:45 mails left
20 November 1:40 PM Rec'd mails, 2:05 started
28 November 12:45PM Arrived at Bombay, 1:15 mails left
28 November 3:30PM Started
28 November 4:00 PM Moored ship at Mazagon

29 December 10:15AM Rec'd mails

29 December 10:35AM Started from Bombay

Rennoldson Johnson 1867 4 January 12:34PM Mails left, anchored at Aden

4 January 9:15PM Rec'd mails, 9:30 started
10 January 7:55AM Arrived at Suez, 10:30 mails left
27 January 3:00 AM Rec'd mails, 5:15 PM started

2 February 5:10AM Arrived at Aden, 5:45 mails left

2 February 1:40PM Rec'd mails, 2:10 started
9 February 12:45PM Arrived at Bombay, 1:24 mails left
9 February 4:00 PM Started
9 February 4:30PM Moored ship at Mazagon
20 February 12:30PM Rec'd mails, 1:05 started
23 February - 7:45PM G Young (4th Engineer) died

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

24 February - 7:30AM committed the body to the deep

27 February 2:30AM Arrived at Aden, 2:30 mails left
27 February 10:30AM Started

5 March 8:45AM Arrived in Suez

14 March 2:00 AM Rec'd mails, 4:45 started
19 March 7:40PM Arrived at Aden, 7:15 mails left
20 March 5:55AM Rec'd mails, 6:15 started
27 March 8:54AM Arrived at Bombay, mails left
27 March 11:35AM Started
27 March NOON Moored ship at Mazagon

15 April 9:45Am Rec'd mails, started from Bombay

19 April 6:25AM Arrived at Galle, 6:30 mails left
20 April 7:40AM Rec'd mails, 8:30AM 21st started
26 April 6:58AM Arrived at Penang, 7:05 mails left
26 April 1:50PM Rec'd mails, and started
28 April 7:45AM Arrived at Singapore, 8:20 mails left
29 April 9:45AM Rec'd mails, 10AM Started

5 May 9:40AM Arrived at Hong Kong, 10:10 mails left

8 May 9:00 AM Started
8 May 3:30PM Anchored
25 May 4:30PM Started
25 May 11:15PM Arrived at Hong Kong
30 May 2:35PM Started with mails

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

8 June 5:30PM Arrived at Singapore, 5:40 mails left

10 June NOON Started with mails
12 June 6:30AM Arrived at Penang, mails left
12 June 11:30AM Rec'd mails, 11:45 started
21 June 9:00 AM Arrived at Galle, 9:15 mails left
22 June 5:50AM Started
27 June 7:45AM Landed mails at Bombay
27 June 8:15AM Moored ship at Mazagon
***** Missing 28 June to 28 November?

Dundas Wyatt 1867 29 November 3:45PM Started from Mazagon

29 November 4:20PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
29 November 6:05PM Rec'd mails, 6:30 started
30 November - Extract The daughter of Mrs. Burnett (1st class passenger) fell overboard and was drowned
30 November - Extract 7:45 PM Theil Hupau/Agwallab died
10PM committed the body to the deep

5 December 11:20 PM Arrived at Aden, 11:30 mails left

6 December 12:15PM Rec'd mails, 4 started
11 December 6:10PM Arrived at Suez, 9:15 mails left
27 December 2:00 PM Rec'd mails, 12:27AM started

Dundas Wyatt 1868 29 January 3:50PM Started from Mazagon

29 January 4:20PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
29 January 5:15 Rec'd mails, 5:36 started
5 February 7:05AM Arrived at Aden, 7:10 mails left
Rec'd mails, 6:20 started
5 February 5:45PM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

6 February 6:45PM Discharged Abypinian mails

6 February 7:00 PM Started
11 February 12:30AM Arrived at Suez, 4:05 mails left
27 February 8:00 AM Rec'd mails, 12;05 AM 28th started

4 March 5:55PM Arrived at Aden, mails left

5 March 2:10PM Started
11 March 9:15PM Anchored at Bombay, 10:10 mails left
11 March Midnight Started
12 March 1:00 AM Moored ship at Mazagon
28 March 3:30PM Started from Mazagon
28 March 4:10PM Anchored at Bombay
28 March 5:40PM Rec'd mails, 6th started

4 April 9:00 AM Arrived at Aden, mails left

5 April 4:45PM Rec'd mails, 5th started
11 April 7:45 AM Arrived at Suez, 19 mails left
18 April 8:00 PM Rec'd mails, 10 started
25 April 6:25AM Arrived at Aden
25 April 3:30 PM Rec'd mails, 4:20 started

2 May 8:25PM Arrived at Bombay, 9:20 mails left

2 May 10:20PM Started
2 May 11:00 PM Moored ship at Mazagon

Jones Wyatt 1868 12 May 3:20PM Started form Mazagon

Anchored off Apollo Bunder
12 May 3:50 PM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

12 May 4:45PM Rec'd mails, and started

21 May 8:15AM Anchored at Aden
22 May 75:30PM Rec'd mails, 7:45 started
29 May 12:45AM Arrived at Suez, mails left

7 June 2:00 AM Started, rec'd mails, 10AM on 6th

12 June 11:10AM Arrived at Aden, 11:25 mails, left
12 June 6:00 PM Rec'd mails, 1:05AM 13th started
19 June 9:10AM Arrived at Bombay, 10:30 mails left
27 June 5:00 PM Started from Bombay

7 July 3:10AM Arrived at Aden

7 July 2:00 PM Started
13 July 7:30AM Arrived at Suez
18 July 7:15AM Rec'd mails, midnight started
24 July 7:00 AM Arrived at Aden, 7:10 mails left
24 July 1:35PM Rec'd mails, 1:40 started
30 July 1:15PM Arrived at Bombay, 1:40 mails left
30 July 1:45PM Started
30 July 2:36PM Moored ship at Mazagon

Perrins Wyatt 1868 11 August 3:40PM Started form Mazagon

11 August 4:25PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
11 August 6:30PM Rec'd mails, started
14 August - Extract 5:15PM R. Davidson (2nd Engineer) died
15 August - 7AM committed the body to the deep
Arrived at Aden, 6:40 mails left
21 August 6:15AM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

21 August 6:00 PM Rec'd mails, 6:25 started

28 August 6:00 AM Arrived at Suez, mails left

5 September 8:45AM Rec'd mails, 5:10 PM started

11 September 5:28AM Arrived at Aden, 5:40 mails left
11 September 4:30 PM Rec'd mails, 5:10 started
18 September 2:15PM Landed mails at Bombay
18 September 3:00 PM Moored ship at Mazagon

Coleman Wyatt 1868 10 October 3:30PM Started from Mazagon

10 October 3:55PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
10 October 5:30PM Rec'd mails, 5:40 started
13 October - Extract 11:40PM Charles Parish (2nd class passenger) died
14 October - 8AM committed the body to the deep
17 October 8:30AM Arrived at Aden, 8:25 mails left
17 October 5:30PM Started
20 October - Extract 8:30PM Mrs. Simpson (1st class passenger) died
21 October - 7:40AM committed the body to the deep
23 October 6:56AM Arrived at Suez, 10 mails left

1 November 4:30Am Rec'd mails, 11:40 started

7 November 1:50AM rived at Aden, 2:25 mails left
7 November 11:40AM Rec'd mails, noon started
14 November 9:45AM Landed mails at Bombay
14 November 10:30AM Moored Shipp at Mazagon
28 November 9:30PM Started from Mazagon
Anchored off Apollo Bunder
28 November 10:10Am

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

28 November 6:00 PM Rec'd mails, 6:15 started

5 December 5:05AM Arrived at Aden

5 December 5:00 PM Rec'd mails, 5:30 started
11 December 10:30AM Arrived at Suez, 12:30Pm mails left
20 December NOON Rec'd mails, 5:20PM started
26 December 6:30AM Arrived at Aden, 6:40 mails left
26 December 12:10 PM Rec'd mails, 12:30 started

Coleman Wyatt 1869 3 January 10:00 AM Arrived at Bombay, 10:30 mails left
3 January 10:35AM Started
3 January 11:30AM Moored ship at Mazagon
16 January 3:45PM Started from Mazagon
16 January 4:10PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
16 January 5:15PM Rec'd mails, 5:30 started
23 January 6:50AM Arrived at Aden, 7:20 mails left
Rec'd mails, 5:30 started with a lighter
23 January 4:30PM in tow
Arrived at Suez, 12:30 AM 31th mails
30 January 11:35 PM left

3 February - Extract 8PM Mombanack Native died

4 February - 6AM Landed the body for burial
Rec'd mails, 4:15 Pm started from
8 February 4:00 AM Suez
13 February 11:40PM Arrived at Aden, mails left
14 February 7:40AM Rec'd mails, 9:20 started
21 February 3:10 PM Landed mails at Bombay
Moored ship at Mazagon
21 February 3:40PM

Captain 1st Off Year Date Month Time Ship Activity Extract

Coleman Wyatt 1869 15 May 3:35PM Started from Mazagon

15 May 4:10PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
15 May 5:40PM Rec'd mails, 5:45 started
22 May 1:05PM Arrived at Aden, 1:30 mails left
22 May 8:30PM Rec'd mails, 10:15 PM started
28 May 8:55AM Arrived at Suez, 11 AM mails left

2 June - Extract Allie Amber coaler died of small pox on board Precursor, buried on shore
5 June 11:30 AM Rec'd mails, 1:45 PM started
10 June 7:07 PM Arrived at Aden, 7:15 mails left
11 June 8:00 AM Rec'd mails, 8:10 started
18 June 8:45 AM Discharged mails
18 June 9:50Am Moored at Mazagon

Jones Wyatt 1869 29 June 3:30PM Started from Mazagon

29 June 4:05PM Anchored off Apollo Bunder
29 June 5:00 PM Rec'd mails, 5:25 started

9 July 7:15AM Arrived at Aden, 7:30 mails left

9 July 6:00 PM Rec'd mails, 6:30 started
16 July 11:00 AM Arrived at Suez, noon mails left
25 July 7:00 AM Rec'd mails, 10:40 started
30 July 1:45PM Rec'd mails, 9:40 started

6 August 7:00 AM Landed mails at Bombay

6 August 8:00 AM Moored ship at Mazagon
*This logbook was received 17 Sept. 1869. Its contents were from 29 June to 6 Aug. 1869*** Captain Jones started a new logbook, but it did not survive the wrecking. The Captain of the
Sumatra did make several entries into hi logbook and the P&O transcriptions are included at the end of this appendices.








The G eneral C onference of t he U nited N ations Educational, Scientific a nd C ultural O rganization,

meeting in Paris from 15 October to 3 November 2001, at its 31st session,

Acknowledging the importance of und erwater c ultural heritage as an i ntegral par t of t he

cultural heritage of humanity and a particularly important element in the history of peoples,
nations, and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage,

Realizing the importance of protecting and preserving the und erwater cultural heritage and
that responsibility therefor rests with all States,

Noting growing public interest in and public appreciation of underwater cultural heritage,

Convinced of t he i mportance of r esearch, information an d e ducation t o t he protection a nd

preservation of underwater cultural heritage,

Convinced of t he p ublic’s r ight t o enj oy t he educational an d r ecreational benefits of

responsible non-intrusive access to in situ underwater cultural heritage, and of the value of
public education to contribute to awareness, appreciation and protection of that heritage,

Aware of t he f act t hat un derwater c ultural her itage is t hreatened by unauthorized ac tivities
directed at it, and of the need for stronger measures to prevent such activities,

Conscious of t he ne ed t o r espond a ppropriately to t he pos sible n egative impact on

underwater cultural heritage of legitimate activities that may incidentally affect it,

Deeply concerned by the increasing commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage,

and i n par ticular b y c ertain ac tivities ai med at t he s ale, ac quisition or b arter of under water
cultural heritage,

Aware of the availability of advanced technology that enhances discovery of and access to
underwater cultural heritage,

Believing that c ooperation among S tates, i nternational or ganizations, s cientific i nstitutions,

professional organizations, archaeologists, divers, other interested parties and the public at
large is essential for the protection of underwater cultural heritage,

Considering that survey, excavation and protection of underwater cultural heritage

necessitate t he availability and a pplication of s pecial s cientific m ethods and the us e of

suitable techniques a nd equipment as w ell as a high degree of pr ofessional specialization,
all of which indicate a need for uniform governing criteria,

Realizing the nee d t o c odify and pr ogressively develop r ules r elating t o the protection and
preservation of underwater cultural heritage in conformity with international law and practice,
including t he U NESCO C onvention on t he Means of P rohibiting and Preventing t he I llicit
Import, E xport and T ransfer of O wnership of C ultural P roperty of 14 N ovember 1970, t he
UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of
16 November 1972 a nd the U nited N ations C onvention on t he La w of t he S ea of
10 December 1982,

Committed to improving the effectiveness of measures at international, regional and national

levels for t he pr eservation in s itu or, i f nec essary f or s cientific or protective p urposes, t he
careful recovery of underwater cultural heritage,

Having decided at its twenty-ninth session that this question should be made the subject of
an international convention,

Adopts this second day of November 2001 this Convention.

Article 1 – Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. (a) “Underwater c ultural her itage” m eans al l t races of hum an ex istence hav ing a
cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or
totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years such as:

(i) sites, s tructures, bui ldings, ar tefacts and hum an r emains, t ogether w ith
their archaeological and natural context;

(ii) vessels, ai rcraft, ot her v ehicles or any p art t hereof, t heir c argo or other
contents, together with their archaeological and natural context; and

(iii) objects of prehistoric character.

(b) Pipelines an d c ables placed on t he s eabed s hall not be c onsidered as

underwater cultural heritage.

(c) Installations other than pipelines and cables, placed on the seabed and still in
use, shall not be considered as underwater cultural heritage.

2. (a) “States Parties” means States which have consented to be bound by this
Convention and for which this Convention is in force.

(b) This C onvention app lies mutatis mut andis to t hose t erritories r eferred t o i n
Article 26, par agraph 2( b), w hich b ecome P arties t o t his C onvention i n
accordance with t he c onditions s et out i n t hat paragraph, and t o t hat extent
“States Parties” refers to those territories.

3. “UNESCO” m eans t he U nited N ations E ducational, Scientific and C ultural


4. “Director-General” means the Director-General of UNESCO.

5. “Area” m eans t he s eabed and ocean f loor and s ubsoil t hereof, be yond t he l imits of
national jurisdiction.

6. “Activities directed at underwater cultural heritage” means activities having underwater

cultural h eritage as t heir primary object a nd which m ay, directly or indirectly, ph ysically
disturb or otherwise damage underwater cultural heritage.

7. “Activities i ncidentally af fecting u nderwater c ultural he ritage” m eans ac tivities which,

despite not having underwater cultural heritage as their primary object or one of their objects,
may physically disturb or otherwise damage underwater cultural heritage.

8. “State vessels an d a ircraft” means w arships, and ot her v essels or ai rcraft t hat were
owned or oper ated b y a S tate an d us ed, at t he t ime of sinking, onl y f or gov ernment non -
commercial purposes, that are identified as such and that meet the definition of underwater
cultural heritage.

9. “Rules” means the Rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage,
as referred to in Article 33 of this Convention.

Article 2 – Objectives and general principles

1. This Convention aims to ensure and strengthen the protection of underwater cultural

2. States Parties shall cooperate in the protection of underwater cultural heritage.

3. States Parties shall preserve underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humanity
in conformity with the provisions of this Convention.

4. States P arties s hall, i ndividually or j ointly as ap propriate, t ake al l ap propriate

measures in conformity with this Convention and with international law that are necessary to
protect underwater c ultural her itage, using f or t his p urpose t he bes t practicable m eans at
their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities.

5. The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first
option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage.

6. Recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed

in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation.

7. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited.

8. Consistent with State pr actice an d i nternational l aw, including t he United Nations

Convention on t he Law of t he S ea, no thing in t his C onvention s hall be interpreted as
modifying the rules of international law and State practice pertaining to sovereign immunities,
nor any State’s rights with respect to its State vessels and aircraft.

9. States Parties shall ensure that proper respect is given to all human remains located
in maritime waters.

10. Responsible non-intrusive access to observe or document in situ underwater cultural

heritage shall be encouraged to create public awareness, appreciation, and protection of the
heritage except where such access is incompatible with its protection and management.

11. No act or activity undertaken on the basis of this Convention shall constitute grounds
for claiming, contending or disputing any claim to national sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Article 3 – Relationship between this Convention
and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under
international l aw, including t he U nited N ations C onvention o n t he Law of t he S ea. T his
Convention shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with
international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Article 4 – Relationship to law of salvage and law of finds

Any activity relating to underwater cultural heritage to which this Convention applies shall not
be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds, unless it:

(a) is authorized by the competent authorities, and

(b) is in full conformity with this Convention, and

(c) ensures that any recovery of the underwater cultural heritage achieves its
maximum protection.

Article 5 – Activities incidentally affecting underwater cultural heritage

Each State Party shall use the best practicable means at its disposal to prevent or mitigate
any adverse effects that might arise from activities under its jurisdiction incidentally affecting
underwater cultural heritage.

Article 6 – Bilateral, regional or other multilateral agreements

1. States P arties ar e enc ouraged t o ent er i nto bi lateral, r egional or ot her m ultilateral
agreements or dev elop e xisting a greements, f or t he pr eservation of under water c ultural
heritage. A ll s uch agreements s hall be in f ull c onformity with t he pr ovisions of t his
Convention an d s hall not dilute its u niversal c haracter. S tates m ay, i n s uch a greements,
adopt r ules an d r egulations w hich would ens ure b etter pr otection of under water c ultural
heritage than those adopted in this Convention.

2. The P arties t o s uch bi lateral, r egional or ot her m ultilateral agr eements may i nvite
States with a verifiable l ink, es pecially a c ultural, historical or archaeological l ink, t o t he
underwater cultural heritage concerned to join such agreements.

3. This Convention shall not alter the rights and ob ligations of States Parties r egarding
the pr otection of s unken v essels, ar ising f rom ot her bilateral, r egional or ot her multilateral
agreements c oncluded b efore i ts ad option, a nd, i n p articular, t hose t hat ar e i n c onformity
with the purposes of this Convention.

Article 7 – Underwater cultural heritage

in internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial sea

1. States Parties, in the exercise of their sovereignty, have the exclusive right to regulate
and au thorize ac tivities di rected at und erwater c ultural her itage i n t heir i nternal waters,
archipelagic waters and territorial sea.

2. Without pr ejudice t o ot her i nternational agr eements and r ules of i nternational l aw

regarding the protection of underwater cultural heritage, States Parties shall require that the

Rules be applied to activities directed at underwater cultural heritage in their internal waters,
archipelagic waters and territorial sea.

3. Within their archipelagic waters and territorial sea, in the exercise of their sovereignty
and i n r ecognition of gener al pr actice am ong S tates, S tates P arties, w ith a v iew t o
cooperating on the best methods of protecting State vessels and aircraft, should inform the
flag S tate Party t o t his C onvention an d, i f ap plicable, ot her S tates with a verifiable l ink,
especially a c ultural, h istorical or ar chaeological link, w ith r espect t o t he di scovery of s uch
identifiable State vessels and aircraft.

Article 8 – Underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone

Without prejudice to and in addition to Articles 9 and 10, and in accordance with Article 303,
paragraph 2, of t he U nited N ations Convention o n the Law of t he S ea, States Parties may
regulate an d authorize activities d irected at un derwater c ultural h eritage within t heir
contiguous zone. In so doing, they shall require that the Rules be applied.

Article 9 – Reporting and notification

in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf

1. All States Parties have a responsibility to protect underwater cultural heritage in the
exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf in conformity with this Convention.


(a) a State Party shall require that when its national, or a vessel flying its flag,
discovers or intends to engage in activities directed at underwater cultural
heritage located in its exclusive economic zone or on its continental shelf, the
national or the master of the vessel shall report such discovery or activity to it;

(b) in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of another State

(i) States Parties shall require the national or the master of the vessel
to report such discovery or activity to them and to that other State

(ii) alternatively, a State Party shall require the national or master of the
vessel to report such discovery or activity to it and shall ensure the
rapid and effective transmission of such reports to all other States

2. On depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a State

Party shall declare the manner in which reports will be transmitted under paragraph 1(b) of
this Article.

3. A State Party shall notify the Director-General of discoveries or activities reported to it

under paragraph 1 of this Article.

4. The Director-General shall promptly make available to all States Parties any
information notified to him under paragraph 3 of this Article.

5. Any State Party may declare to the State Party in whose exclusive economic zone or
on whose continental shelf the underwater cultural heritage is located its interest in being
consulted on how to ensure the effective protection of that underwater cultural heritage.
Such declaration shall be based on a verifiable link, especially a cultural, historical or
archaeological link, to the underwater cultural heritage concerned.

Article 10 – Protection of underwater cultural heritage

in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf

1. No authorization shall be granted for an activity directed at underwater cultural

heritage located in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf except in
conformity with the provisions of this Article.

2. A State Party in whose exclusive economic zone or on whose continental shelf

underwater cultural heritage is located has the right to prohibit or authorize any activity
directed at such heritage to prevent interference with its sovereign rights or jurisdiction as
provided for by international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the

3. Where there is a discovery of underwater cultural heritage or it is intended that

activity shall be directed at underwater cultural heritage in a State Party’s exclusive
economic zone or on its continental shelf, that State Party shall:

(a) consult all other States Parties which have declared an interest under Article 9,
paragraph 5, on how best to protect the underwater cultural heritage;

(b) coordinate such consultations as “Coordinating State”, unless it expressly

declares that it does not wish to do so, in which case the States Parties which
have declared an interest under Article 9, paragraph 5, shall appoint a
Coordinating State.

4. Without prejudice to the duty of all States Parties to protect underwater cultural
heritage by way of all practicable measures taken in accordance with international law to
prevent immediate danger to the underwater cultural heritage, including looting, the
Coordinating State may take all practicable measures, and/or issue any necessary
authorizations in conformity with this Convention and, if necessary prior to consultations, to
prevent any immediate danger to the underwater cultural heritage, whether arising from
human activities or any other cause, including looting. In taking such measures assistance
may be requested from other States Parties.

5. The Coordinating State:

(a) shall implement measures of protection which have been agreed by the
consulting States, which include the Coordinating State, unless the consulting
States, which include the Coordinating State, agree that another State Party
shall implement those measures;

(b) shall issue all necessary authorizations for such agreed measures in
conformity with the Rules, unless the consulting States, which include the
Coordinating State, agree that another State Party shall issue those

(c) may conduct any necessary preliminary research on the underwater cultural
heritage and shall issue all necessary authorizations therefor, and shall
promptly inform the Director-General of the results, who in turn will make such
information promptly available to other States Parties.

6. In coordinating consultations, taking measures, conducting preliminary research
and/or issuing authorizations pursuant to this Article, the Coordinating State shall act on
behalf of the States Parties as a whole and not in its own interest. Any such action shall not
in itself constitute a basis for the assertion of any preferential or jurisdictional rights not
provided for in international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the

7. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Article, no activity directed at

State vessels and aircraft shall be conducted without the agreement of the flag State and
the collaboration of the Coordinating State.

Article 11 – Reporting and notification in the Area

1. States Parties have a responsibility to protect underwater cultural heritage in the Area
in conformity with this Convention and Article 149 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of t he Sea. A ccordingly when a na tional, or a vessel f lying t he f lag of a S tate Party,
discovers or intends to engage in activities directed at underwater cultural heritage located in
the Area, that State Party shall require its national, or the master of the vessel, to report such
discovery or activity to it.

2. States P arties s hall n otify t he D irector-General an d t he S ecretary-General of t he

International Seabed Authority of such discoveries or activities reported to them.

3. The D irector-General s hall pr omptly m ake av ailable to al l States P arties an y such

information supplied by States Parties.

4. Any State Party may declare to the Director-General its interest in being consulted on
how to ensure the effective protection of that underwater cultural heritage. Such declaration
shall be based on a verifiable link to the underwater cultural heritage concerned, particular
regard being paid to the preferential rights of States of cultural, historical or archaeological

Article 12 – Protection of underwater cultural heritage in the Area

1. No a uthorization s hall b e gr anted f or a ny activity directed at un derwater c ultural

heritage located in the Area except in conformity with the provisions of this Article.

2. The D irector-General s hall i nvite all S tates P arties which ha ve declared an interest
under A rticle 11 , p aragraph 4, t o c onsult on ho w b est t o pr otect t he underwater c ultural
heritage, and to appoint a State Party to coordinate such consultations as the “Coordinating
State”. The Director-General shall also invite the International Seabed Authority to participate
in such consultations.

3. All S tates Parties m ay take al l practicable m easures i n c onformity with t his

Convention, i f nec essary prior t o c onsultations, t o prevent any immediate da nger t o t he
underwater cultural heritage, whether arising from human activity or any other cause
including looting.

4. The Coordinating State shall:

(a) implement measures of pr otection which ha ve been agreed b y t he c onsulting

States, w hich i nclude t he C oordinating S tate, u nless t he c onsulting States,
which include t he C oordinating State, agr ee t hat another State Party s hall
implement those measures; and

(b) issue all necessary authorizations for such agreed measures, in conformity with
this C onvention, u nless t he c onsulting States, w hich i nclude t he C oordinating
State, agree that another State Party shall issue those authorizations.

5. The C oordinating State m ay c onduct an y necessary preliminary r esearch on t he

underwater cultural heritage and shall issue all necessary authorizations therefor, and shall
promptly inform the Director-General of the results, who in turn shall make such information
available to other States Parties.

6. In c oordinating c onsultations, t aking m easures, c onducting preliminary r esearch,

and/or issuing authorizations pursuant to this Article, the Coordinating State shall act for the
benefit of humanity as a whole, on behalf of all States Parties. Particular regard shall be paid
to the preferential rights of States of cultural, historical or archaeological origin in respect of
the underwater cultural heritage concerned.

7. No State Party s hall un dertake or aut horize ac tivities di rected a t State vessels an d
aircraft in the Area without the consent of the flag State.

Article 13 – Sovereign immunity

Warships and other government ships or military aircraft with sovereign immunity, operated
for non -commercial pur poses, under taking t heir n ormal m ode of oper ations, and not
engaged in activities directed at underwater cultural heritage, shall not be obliged to report
discoveries of un derwater c ultural h eritage under Articles 9, 1 0, 11 a nd 12 of t his
Convention. However States Parties shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures
not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of their warships or other government
ships or military aircraft with sovereign immunity operated for non-commercial purposes, that
they c omply, as f ar as is r easonable and pr acticable, with Articles 9, 10, 11 an d 12 of t his

Article 14 – Control of entry into the territory, dealing and possession

States Parties shall take measures to prevent the entry into their territory, the dealing in, or
the possession of , un derwater c ultural h eritage i llicitly exported a nd/or r ecovered, where
recovery was contrary to this Convention.

Article 15 – Non-use of areas under the jurisdiction of States Parties

States P arties s hall t ake m easures t o pr ohibit t he use of t heir t erritory, including t heir
maritime ports, as well as artificial islands, installations and structures under their exclusive
jurisdiction or control, in support of any activity directed at underwater cultural heritage which
is not in conformity with this Convention.

Article 16 – Measures relating to nationals and vessels

States Parties shall take all practicable measures to ensure that their nationals and vessels
flying t heir f lag d o n ot engage in an y activity directed at underwater c ultural h eritage in a
manner not in conformity with this Convention.

Article 17 – Sanctions

1. Each S tate P arty s hall i mpose s anctions f or v iolations of measures i t has t aken t o
implement this Convention.

2. Sanctions applicable i n r espect of v iolations s hall be ad equate in s everity t o be
effective in securing compliance with this Convention and to discourage violations wherever
they occur and shall deprive offenders of the benefit deriving from their illegal activities.

3. States Parties shall cooperate to ensure enforcement of sanctions imposed under this

Article 18 – Seizure and disposition of underwater cultural heritage

1. Each State Party shall take measures providing for the seizure of underwater cultural
heritage in i ts t erritory t hat has bee n r ecovered i n a m anner not i n c onformity with t his

2. Each State P arty s hall record, pr otect and t ake al l r easonable m easures t o s tabilize
underwater cultural heritage seized under this Convention.

3. Each State Party shall notify the Director-General and any other State with a verifiable
link, especially a cultural, historical or archaeological link, to the underwater cultural heritage
concerned of any seizure of underwater cultural heritage that it has made under this

4. A State Party which has seized underwater c ultural her itage s hall ens ure t hat i ts
disposition b e f or t he pu blic b enefit, t aking into ac count the ne ed f or c onservation an d
research; t he need f or r eassembly of a di spersed c ollection; t he ne ed f or pub lic ac cess,
exhibition and ed ucation; and t he interests of an y State with a verifiable l ink, es pecially a
cultural, historical or archaeological link, in respect of the underwater cultural heritage

Article 19 – Cooperation and information-sharing

1. States Parties shall cooperate and assist each other in the protection and
management of under water c ultural heritage u nder t his C onvention, including, where
practicable, collaborating in the investigation, excavation, documentation, conservation,
study and presentation of such heritage.

2. To t he ex tent c ompatible with t he pur poses of t his C onvention, eac h State P arty
undertakes t o s hare i nformation w ith ot her S tates P arties c oncerning und erwater c ultural
heritage, including discovery of her itage, l ocation of her itage, her itage ex cavated or
recovered contrary to this Convention or otherwise in violation of international law, pertinent
scientific methodology and technology, and legal developments relating to such heritage.

3. Information shared between States Parties, or between UNESCO and States Parties,
regarding the discovery or location of underwater cultural heritage shall, to the extent
compatible with t heir national l egislation, be k ept c onfidential a nd r eserved t o c ompetent
authorities of States Parties as long as the disclosure of such information might endanger or
otherwise put at risk the preservation of such underwater cultural heritage.

4. Each State Party shall take all practicable measures to disseminate information,
including where feasible through appropriate international databases, about underwater
cultural heritage excavated or recovered contrary to this Convention or otherwise in violation
of international law.

Article 20 – Public awareness

Each State Party shall take all practicable measures to raise public awareness regarding the
value a nd s ignificance of under water c ultural her itage and t he i mportance of pr otecting i t
under this Convention.

Article 21 – Training in underwater archaeology

States P arties s hall c ooperate i n t he pr ovision of t raining i n un derwater ar chaeology, in

techniques for the conservation of underwater cultural heritage and, on agreed terms, in the
transfer of technology relating to underwater cultural heritage.

Article 22 – Competent authorities

1. In order to ensure the proper implementation of this Convention, States Parties shall
establish c ompetent aut horities or reinforce t he ex isting ones where ap propriate, with t he
aim of providing for t he establishment, maintenance and updating of an inventory of
underwater c ultural heritage, t he effective pr otection, c onservation, presentation a nd
management of underwater cultural heritage, as well as research and education.

2. States Parties shall communicate to the Director-General the names and addresses of
their competent authorities relating to underwater cultural heritage.

Article 23 – Meetings of States Parties

1. The Director-General shall convene a Meeting of States Parties within one year of the
entry into f orce of t his C onvention an d t hereafter at l east o nce every two years. A t t he
request of a majority of States Parties, the Director-General shall convene an Extraordinary
Meeting of States Parties.

2. The Meeting of States Parties shall decide on its functions and responsibilities.

3. The Meeting of States Parties shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure.

4. The Meeting of States Parties may establish a Scientific and Technical Advisory Body
composed of ex perts nom inated b y t he States P arties w ith du e r egard t o t he principle of
equitable geographical distribution and the desirability of a gender balance.

5. The S cientific and T echnical Advisory B ody s hall app ropriately assist t he Me eting of
States Parties in questions of a scientific or technical nature regarding the implementation of
the Rules.

Article 24 – Secretariat for this Convention

1. The Director-General shall be responsible for the functions of the Secretariat for this

2. The duties of the Secretariat shall include:

(a) organizing Meetings of States Parties as provided for in Article 23, paragraph 1;

(b) assisting States Parties in implementing the decisions of the Meetings of States

Article 25 – Peaceful settlement of disputes

1. Any d ispute b etween t wo or m ore S tates P arties c oncerning the i nterpretation or

application of this Convention shall be subject to negotiations in good faith or other peaceful
means of settlement of their own choice.

2. If t hose negot iations do n ot s ettle t he d ispute within a r easonable period of t ime, i t

may be s ubmitted t o U NESCO f or mediation, b y ag reement bet ween t he S tates P arties

3. If mediation is not undertaken or if there is no settlement by mediation, the provisions

relating to the settlement of disputes set out in Part XV of the United Nations Convention on
the La w of t he S ea ap ply mutatis mut andis to an y d ispute bet ween S tates P arties t o t his
Convention c oncerning t he i nterpretation or app lication of t his C onvention, whether or not
they are also Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

4. Any procedure chosen by a State Party to this Convention and to the United Nations
Convention o n t he Law of t he S ea p ursuant t o A rticle 287 of t he l atter s hall a pply t o t he
settlement of disputes under this Article, unless that State Party, when ratifying, accepting,
approving or acceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, chooses another
procedure pursuant to Article 287 for the purpose of the settlement of disputes arising out of
this Convention.

5. A State Party to this Convention which is not a Party to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea, when ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention
or at any time thereafter shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or
more of the means set out in Article 287, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on
the La w of the Sea for the purpose of settlement of disputes under this Article. A rticle 2 87
shall ap ply t o s uch a declaration, as well as t o a ny dispute t o which s uch S tate i s party,
which is not covered by a declaration in force. For the purpose of conciliation and arbitration,
in accordance with Annexes V and VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, such State shall be entitled to nominate conciliators and arbitrators to be included in the
lists referred to in Annex V, Article 2, and Annex VII, Article 2, for the settlement of disputes
arising out of this Convention.

Article 26 – Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession

1. This C onvention s hall be subject t o r atification, acceptance or appr oval b y M ember

States of UNESCO.

2. This Convention shall be subject to accession:

(a) by States t hat ar e not m embers o f U NESCO b ut ar e m embers o f t he U nited

Nations or of a specialized agenc y within t he U nited N ations s ystem or of t he
International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as by States Parties to the Statute
of the International Court of Justice and any other State invited to accede to this
Convention by the General Conference of UNESCO;

(b) by territories which e njoy f ull i nternal s elf-government, r ecognized as s uch b y

the United Nations, but have not attained full independence in accordance with
General Assembly r esolution 151 4 ( XV) and which h ave c ompetence o ver the
matters gov erned b y t his Convention, including t he competence t o e nter into
treaties in respect of those matters.

3. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited

with the Director-General.

Article 27 – Entry into force

This C onvention s hall e nter i nto f orce t hree m onths af ter t he d ate of t he deposit of t he
twentieth instrument referred to in Article 26, but solely with respect to the twenty States or
territories t hat ha ve s o de posited t heir i nstruments. I t s hall ent er i nto f orce f or each ot her
State or territory three months after the date on which that State or territory has deposited its

Article 28 – Declaration as to inland waters

When ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter,
any State or t erritory m ay dec lare t hat t he R ules s hall ap ply t o i nland waters not of a
maritime character.

Article 29 – Limitations to geographical scope

At the t ime of r atifying, accepting, ap proving or ac ceding t o this C onvention, a S tate or

territory m ay make a declaration to t he depositary that this C onvention s hall not be
applicable t o s pecific par ts of i ts t erritory, i nternal w aters, ar chipelagic w aters or t erritorial
sea, and s hall i dentify t herein t he r easons f or s uch dec laration. S uch State s hall, t o t he
extent pr acticable a nd a s qui ckly as pos sible, promote c onditions un der w hich t his
Convention will apply to t he ar eas s pecified in i ts declaration, a nd to t hat en d s hall al so
withdraw its declaration in whole or in part as soon as that has been achieved.

Article 30 – Reservations

With the exception of Article 29, no reservations may be made to this Convention.

Article 31 – Amendments

1. A St ate Pa rty m ay, b y written c ommunication a ddressed t o t he D irector-General,

propose am endments t o t his C onvention. T he Director-General s hall c irculate s uch
communication to all States Parties. If, within six months from the date of the circulation of
the c ommunication, not l ess t han one h alf of t he States Parties r eply f avourably to t he
request, t he D irector-General s hall pr esent s uch pr oposal t o t he nex t M eeting of S tates
Parties for discussion and possible adoption.

2. Amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of States Parties present and


3. Once ado pted, am endments t o t his C onvention s hall b e s ubject t o r atification,

acceptance, approval or accession by the States Parties.

4. Amendments s hall ent er i nto f orce, but s olely with r espect t o t he S tates P arties t hat
have ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to them, three months after the deposit of the
instruments r eferred t o i n paragraph 3 of t his A rticle b y t wo t hirds of t he States P arties.
Thereafter, f or eac h S tate or t erritory t hat r atifies, ac cepts, ap proves or ac cedes t o i t, t he
amendment shall enter into force three months after the date of deposit by that Party of its
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

5. A State or territory which becomes a Party to this Convention after the entry into force
of amendments in conformity with par agraph 4 of this A rticle s hall, failing an ex pression of
different intention by that State or territory, be considered:

(a) as a Party to this Convention as so amended; and

(b) as a P arty t o t he u namended C onvention in r elation t o an y State P arty no t
bound by the amendment.

Article 32 – Denunciation

1. A S tate P arty m ay, b y written notification ad dressed t o t he D irector-General,

denounce this Convention.

2. The denunc iation s hall t ake effect t welve m onths af ter t he dat e of r eceipt of t he
notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.

3. The denu nciation shall not i n any way affect t he dut y of any State Party to fulfil any
obligation embodied in this Convention to which it would be subject under international law
independently of this Convention.

Article 33 – The Rules

The R ules ann exed t o t his C onvention f orm an i ntegral p art of i t and , un less ex pressly
provided otherwise, a reference to this Convention includes a reference to the Rules.

Article 34 – Registration with the United Nations

In conformity with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, this Convention shall be
registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations at the request of the Director-General.

Article 35 – Authoritative texts

This Convention has been drawn up in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and
Spanish, the six texts being equally authoritative.


Rules concerning activities directed

at underwater cultural heritage

I. General principles

Rule 1. The protection of underwater cultural heritage through in situ preservation shall be
considered as the first option. Accordingly, activities directed at underwater cultural heritage
shall be authorized in a manner consistent with the protection of that heritage, and subject to
that r equirement m ay b e a uthorized f or t he pur pose of making a s ignificant c ontribution to
protection or knowledge or enhancement of underwater cultural heritage.

Rule 2. The commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or

speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection and
proper management of un derwater c ultural h eritage. Underwater c ultural her itage s hall n ot
be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods.

This Rule cannot be interpreted as preventing:

(a) the provision of professional archaeological services or necessary services

incidental t hereto whose nature a nd pur pose ar e i n f ull c onformity with t his
Convention and are subject to the authorization of the competent authorities;

(b) the de position of under water c ultural her itage, r ecovered i n t he c ourse of a
research pr oject i n c onformity with t his C onvention, pr ovided s uch dep osition
does not prejudice the scientific or cultural interest or integrity of the recovered
material or r esult i n i ts i rretrievable d ispersal; i s in ac cordance with t he
provisions of Rules 33 and 34; and is subject to the authorization of the
competent authorities.

Rule 3. Activities di rected at un derwater c ultural her itage s hall n ot ad versely af fect t he
underwater cultural heritage more than is necessary for the objectives of the project.

Rule 4. Activities d irected a t un derwater c ultural heritage must us e non -destructive

techniques and survey methods in preference to recovery of objects. If excavation or
recovery is necessary for the purpose of scientific studies or for the ultimate protection of the
underwater cultural heritage, the methods and techniques used must be as non-destructive
as possible and contribute to the preservation of the remains.

Rule 5. Activities di rected at u nderwater c ultural her itage s hall a void t he u nnecessary
disturbance of human remains or venerated sites.

Rule 6. Activities d irected at un derwater c ultural her itage s hall b e s trictly regulated t o
ensure proper recording of cultural, historical and archaeological information.

Rule 7. Public a ccess t o in s itu underwater c ultural h eritage s hall be pr omoted, ex cept
where such access is incompatible with protection and management.

Rule 8. International cooperation in the conduct of activities directed at underwater cultural

heritage s hall be encouraged i n or der t o f urther t he ef fective exchange or us e of
archaeologists and other relevant professionals.

II. Project design

Rule 9. Prior t o any activity directed at underwater c ultural h eritage, a pr oject design f or
the activity shall be developed and submitted to the competent authorities for authorization
and appropriate peer review.

Rule 10. The project design shall include:

(a) an evaluation of previous or preliminary studies;

(b) the project statement and objectives;

(c) the methodology to be used and the techniques to be employed;

(d) the anticipated funding;

(e) an expected timetable for completion of the project;

(f) the c omposition of t he team and t he qualifications, r esponsibilities a nd

experience of each team member;

(g) plans for post-fieldwork analysis and other activities;

(h) a c onservation pr ogramme f or ar tefacts and t he s ite in c lose c ooperation with

the competent authorities;

(i) a site management and maintenance policy for the whole duration of the

(j) a documentation programme;

(k) a safety policy;

(l) an environmental policy;

(m) arrangements for collaboration with museums and other institutions, in

particular scientific institutions;

(n) report preparation;

(o) deposition of archives, including underwater cultural heritage removed; and

(p) a programme for publication.

Rule 11. Activities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall be carried out in
accordance with the project design approved by the competent authorities.

Rule 12. Where unex pected d iscoveries ar e m ade or c ircumstances c hange, t he pr oject
design shall be reviewed and amended with the approval of the competent authorities.

Rule 13. In cases of ur gency or c hance d iscoveries, ac tivities di rected at t he u nderwater

cultural heritage, including conservation measures or activities for a period of short duration,
in particular site stabilization, may be authorized in the absence of a project design in order
to protect the underwater cultural heritage.

III. Preliminary work

Rule 14. The pr eliminary work r eferred to in R ule 10 ( a) shall i nclude an as sessment t hat
evaluates t he s ignificance an d vulnerability of t he underwater c ultural her itage and t he
surrounding nat ural en vironment t o d amage b y t he proposed pr oject, an d t he potential to
obtain data that would meet the project objectives.

Rule 15. The as sessment shall al so i nclude b ackground studies of available historical and
archaeological e vidence, t he ar chaeological an d e nvironmental c haracteristics of t he s ite,
and the consequences of any potential intrusion for the long-term stability of the underwater
cultural heritage affected by the activities.

IV. Project objective, methodology and techniques

Rule 16. The methodology s hall c omply with t he pr oject o bjectives, a nd t he t echniques
employed shall be as non-intrusive as possible.

V. Funding

Rule 17. Except in cases of emergency to protect underwater cultural heritage, an adequate
funding base shall be assured in advance of any activity, sufficient to complete all stages of
the project des ign, i ncluding c onservation, d ocumentation and c uration of r ecovered
artefacts, and report preparation and dissemination.

Rule 18. The pr oject des ign s hall demonstrate an ab ility, s uch as b y s ecuring a bond, to
fund the project through to completion.

Rule 19. The project design shall include a contingency plan that will ensure conservation of
underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption of
anticipated funding.

VI. Project duration - timetable

Rule 20. An a dequate timetable s hall be d eveloped t o as sure i n a dvance of an y ac tivity

directed at und erwater c ultural her itage t he c ompletion of al l s tages of t he pr oject design,
including c onservation, d ocumentation a nd c uration of r ecovered und erwater c ultural
heritage, as well as report preparation and dissemination.

Rule 21. The project design shall include a contingency plan that will ensure conservation of
underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption or
termination of the project.

VII. Competence and qualifications

Rule 22. Activities d irected at un derwater c ultural h eritage s hall only be undertaken un der
the di rection and c ontrol of , and i n t he r egular pr esence of , a qua lified underwater
archaeologist with scientific competence appropriate to the project.

Rule 23. All per sons on t he pr oject t eam shall b e qua lified and h ave dem onstrated
competence appropriate to their roles in the project.

VIII. Conservation and site management

Rule 24. The conservation programme shall provide for the treatment of the archaeological
remains during the activities directed at underwater cultural heritage, during transit and in the
long t erm. C onservation shall b e c arried out i n a ccordance with c urrent p rofessional

Rule 25. The s ite m anagement pr ogramme s hall pr ovide f or t he pr otection and
management in situ of underwater cultural heritage, in the course of and upon t ermination of
fieldwork. T he pr ogramme s hall i nclude p ublic information, r easonable pr ovision f or s ite
stabilization, monitoring, and protection against interference.

IX. Documentation

Rule 26. The doc umentation pr ogramme s hall s et out t horough doc umentation i ncluding a
progress report of activities directed at underwater c ultural heritage, i n ac cordance w ith
current professional standards of archaeological documentation.

Rule 27. Documentation s hall i nclude, at a m inimum, a c omprehensive r ecord of t he s ite,

including the provenance of underwater cultural heritage moved or removed in the course of
the activities directed at underwater cultural heritage, field notes, plans, drawings, sections,
and photographs or recording in other media.

X. Safety

Rule 28. A safety policy shall be prepared that is adequate to ensure the safety and health
of t he pr oject t eam and t hird par ties and t hat i s i n c onformity with an y ap plicable s tatutory
and professional requirements.

XI. Environment

Rule 29. An en vironmental po licy s hall be prepared t hat i s a dequate t o e nsure t hat t he
seabed and marine life are not unduly disturbed.

XII. Reporting

Rule 30. Interim and final reports shall be made available according to the timetable set out
in the project design, and deposited in relevant public records.

Rule 31. Reports shall include:

(a) an account of the objectives;

(b) an account of the methods and techniques employed;

(c) an account of the results achieved;

(d) basic graphic and photographic documentation on all phases of the activity;

(e) recommendations concerning c onservation and c uration of t he site and of any

underwater cultural heritage removed; and

(f) recommendations for future activities.

XIII. Curation of project archives

Rule 32. Arrangements f or c uration of t he pr oject archives s hall be agr eed t o b efore an y
activity commences, and shall be set out in the project design.

Rule 33. The pr oject ar chives, i ncluding a ny underwater c ultural h eritage r emoved and a
copy of all supporting documentation shall, as far as possible, be kept together and intact as
a collection in a manner that is available for professional and public access as well as for the
curation of the archives. This should be done as rapidly as possible and in any case not later
than ten years f rom t he c ompletion of the project, i n s o f ar as m ay be c ompatible with
conservation of the underwater cultural heritage.

Rule 34. The pr oject ar chives s hall be m anaged ac cording t o i nternational pr ofessional
standards, and subject to the authorization of the competent authorities.

XIV. Dissemination

Rule 35. Projects shall provide for public education and popular presentation of the project
results where appropriate.

Rule 36. A final synthesis of a project shall be:

(a) made public as soon as possible, having regard to the complexity of the project
and the confidential or sensitive nature of the information; and

(b) deposited in relevant public records.

The foregoing is the authentic text of the Convention duly adopted by the General Conference
of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization during its thirty-
first session, which was held in Paris and declared closed the third day of November 2001.

Le t exte q ui pr écède es t l e t exte au thentique de l a C onvention dûm ent ado ptée p ar l a

Conférence générale de l 'Organisation des Nations U nies pour l 'éducation, l a s cience et l a
culture à sa trente-et-unième session, qui s'est t enue à Paris et qui a été déclarée c lose le
troisième jour de novembre 2001.

Lo anterior es el texto auténtico de la Convención aprobada en buena y debida forma por la

Conferencia General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la
Ciencia y la Cultura, en su trigésimo primera reunión, celebrada en París y terminada el tres
de noviembre de 2001.

Приведенный выше текст является подлинным текстом Конвенции, надлежащим

образом принятой Генеральной конференцией Организации Объединенных Наций по
вопросам образования, науки и культуры на ее тридцать первой сессии, состоявшейся
в Париже и закончившейся третьего ноября 2001 года.

‫ﻭﻳﻌﺗﺑﺭ ﺍﻟﻧﺹ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻘﺩﻡ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻧﺹ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻟﻼﺗﻔﺎﻗﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺍﻋﺗﻣﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻧﺣﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺟﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺗﻣﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺣﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﺭﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻼﺛﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻌﻘﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﻋﻠﻥ ﺍﺧﺗﺗﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻟﺙ ﻣﻥ‬
.2001‫ﺗﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ‬/‫ﻧﻭﻓﻣﺑﺭ‬
Done in Paris this 6th day of November 2001 in two authentic copies bearing the signature of
the President of the thirty-first session of the General Conference and of the Director-General
of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which shall be
deposited in the archives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and certified true copies of which shall be delivered to all the States and
territories referred to in Article 26 as well as to the United Nations.

Совершено в г. Париже 6 ноября 2001 года в двух аутентичных экземплярах за

подписью Председателя Генеральной конференции, собравшейся на тридцать первую
сессию, и Генерального директора Организации Объединенных Наций по вопросам
образования, науки и культуры, надлежащим образом заверенные копии которых будут
направлены всем государствам и территориям, указанным в статье 26, а также
Организации Объединенных Наций.

،2001‫ﺗﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ‬/‫ﺻﺩﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺩﺱ ﻣﻥ ﻧﻭﻓﻣﺑﺭ‬

‫ﻣﻥ ﻧﺳﺧﺗﻳﻥ ﺃﺻﻠﻳﺗﻳﻥ ﺗﺣﻣﻼﻥ ﺗﻭﻗﻳﻌﻲ ﺭﺋﻳﺱ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺗﻣﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﺗﻭﺩﻉ‬،‫ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻼﺛﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺩﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺣﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﺭﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﺗﺭﺳﻝ ﻧﺳﺦ‬،‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﺣﻔﻭﻅﺎﺕ ﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺣﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﺭﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
26‫ﻣُﺻ ّﺩﻕ ﻋﻠﻳﻬﺎ ﻣﻁﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻸﺻﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﻣﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻳﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﺩﺓ‬
.‫ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺣﺩﺓ‬


National Legislation Protecting Egypt's Cultural Heritage

The E gyptian law go verning ar chaeology and t he antiquities t rade, i s Law no. 2 15 ( 31
October 195 1) on t he Protection of A ntiquities, r evised b y laws n o. 52 9 of 195 3, no. 2 4 of
1965 and no. 117 of 1983. Under this law:

1. Antiquities are defined as all movable and immovable objects, which are produced by the
arts, s ciences, l iteratures, customs, r eligions, etc. f rom pr ehistoric t imes to the r eign of
Ismail. Also i ncluded are an y m ovable or i mmovable o bjects pr oduced by f oreign
civilizations that were at one time related to Egypt (i.e. Greek, Ptolemaic, Roman, Libyan,
Persian, et c.) t hat ar e f ound within E gypt's bor ders. A ny m ovable or immovable obj ect
declared to be an antiquity.

2. All antiquities, either known or concealed, ultimately belong to the State, and are required
to be r egistered o n an of ficial i nventory. Mo dification, di splacement or dem olition of
classified antiquities is prohibited. The State maintains the right to expropriate any
antiquity, or land containing antiquities. Discovery of antiquities should be reported
immediately t o the n earest adm inistrative official; the State may acquire any s uch
antiquity for national collections, and the displaying of such antiquity.

3. A permit is legal required for all field research, the conditions of which are set at the time
of granting of the permit. All foreign nationals are required to submit a security declaration
form to the Ministry of Culture Security Office, via the SCA.

4. Exportation of cultural property (including environmental and biological samples) is strictly

prohibited without a permit, which must be obtained 30 days prior to the intended date of
export. Movement of antiquities within the country must be approved 15 days prior to their

5. Dealers in antiquities must be licensed, and must maintain a daily register of transactions.
Antiquities offered for sale must be authorised by the museums in advance.

6. The S upreme Council of A ntiquities und er t he aus pice of t he Mi nistry of C ulture, ar e

responsible for the restoration and preservation of Egypt's cultural heritage.

Other l aws a nd r egulations app ly to r elated issues of zoning of c ities and t ownships t he
organisation of l ocal go vernments and t he c reation of non -governmental o rganizations
(NGOs) and their roles and responsibilities:

1. Law 32 of 1964 on NGOs is now being updated by a new revised law. This law does
not pr ovide f or an y m anagement of s ites or bui ldings and t he r ealisation of r egular
income and ec onomic as sumption of pr ojects due t o s trong r estriction s and di rect
supervision of the Ministry of Social Affairs.

2. Law 106 of 1976, and its amending Law 101 of 1996, related to the organization of
erection or demolition of buildings etc. This law does not touch on cultural heritage.

3. Law 43 of 1979 r elates t o t he or ganization of l ocal g overnments, gov ernors, c ity

managers, mayors, and local councils, and sets their roles and responsibilities. Note:
while this law provides regulatory and supervisory responsibilities for the zoning and
organization of t ownships and c ities, as w ell as gi ving per mits for t he er ection of
buildings or sites, the law does not touch on the issue of cultural heritage.

Law 158 of 1981, modified by Law 187 of 1993, relates to taxation for income for individuals,
corporations and commercial activities.


SCA’s Regulations for Foreign Archaeological Missions

The S upreme C ouncil of A ntiquities ( SCA) has c reated a n ew de partment t itled T he

Department of F oreign Archaeological Mi ssions. T his depar tment will s tandardize t he r ules
and regulations concerning the application and execution of all archaeological work in Egypt.
The director or assistant director of a foreign mission will deal solely with this department.

The application process:

1. Three months prior to excavation work, the mission’s director is required to submit a list of
the ex pedition t eam, s pecifying t he n ationalities a nd pos itions of eac h m ember. This
application must be written in English, clearly stating the time frame of the excavation season.
A survey map showing the location of the requested site should be attached to the application

2. With the application, the CV’s of every team member must be included. The SCA expects
that all team members will be affiliated with a recognized institution. According to the
antiquities protection laws, permission will not be given to anyone who is not a professional in
the field.

3. The ex pedition t eam w ill not b e per mitted t o s tart t heir work unt il t hey h ave r eceived a
security clearance, signed a contract with the SCA, and their application has been accepted
by the Permanent Committee of Antiquities.

4. A n as sistant di rector s hould be s pecified f or eac h mission, t o ac t i n t he abs ence of t he

mission director.

5. The S CA has the r ight to request the details of t he s ource of any expedition’s funding a t
any time.

Additional Requirements for concession applications concerning the West and

East Desert or Coastal areas:

1. For missions wanting to pursue work at their current site, four survey maps signed by the
director of t he m ission need to be s ubmitted to the SCA t hree months pr ior to t he following
excavation season. The map should use the 1 to 50,000 scale or 1 to 25, 000 scale.

2. A ccording t o t he pr esidential d ecree no . 41 3 of 1998, t he f ollowing ar eas a re r estricted,

even for research purposes:

a. T he N orthern bor der, f rom Mer sa Wadi L ahmi on t he R ed S ea C oast t o

b. The Southern border, Latitude 22 from the Red Sea Coast to Ashkeet.
c. T he Western bor der, f rom t he eastern shore of Lak e N asser, i ncluding
Kom-Ombo Aswan and el-Mafarq, to Ashkeet on latitude 22
d. The Eastern border, the Egyptian Red Sea coast.

Security Regulation:

1. T hree m onths pr ior t o excavation work, per sonal app lication f or e ach m ission m ember,
including the ap plicants f ull name, dat e of bi rth, n ationality, pas sport ph oto-copy, pos ition,
institution of affiliation, religion and five passport photos must be submitted to the SCA. The
Department of F oreign A rchaeological M issions r equires p ersonal applications i n or der t o
issue security clearance for each team member.

2. A f ee of 10. 50 L E f or each p ersonal a pplication should be pa id to t he D epartment of

Security in order to process the security clearance.

3. S ending s amples a nd specimens abr oad f or an alyses i s prohibited; s amples m ust be

examined i n t he R esearch and Ma intenance La b of t he S CA or i n a pproved al ternative
Egyptian labs.

4. A dding ad ditional m embers t o t he m ission’s team af ter appl ication ac ceptance i s


5 F or missions w anting t o w ork at a l ocation c lose t o t heir c urrent s ite i n t he West or E ast
Deserts or Coastal regions, eleven survey maps signed by the director of the mission need to
be submitted to the SCA three months prior to the excavation. The maps should use the 1 to
50,000 scale or the 1 to 25,000 scale.

Rules for the missions working on sites:

1. N o ne w c oncessions will be given t o a c urrent t eam member w anting t o c reate a new

excavation area within the granted site of the mission.

2. The working mission will not be allowed to open new sites anywhere until they publish their
current site completely.

3. The mission will be granted only one season per year. The season’s start and finish dates
must be specified in the application. If the mission needs another season within the year, they
should request this at the beginning.

4. The SCA prohibits missions to work at more than one site at the same time.

5. In order to renew the contract with the SCA the mission is required to reapply and meet the
above mentioned conditions.

6 Working on Thursdays can be gr anted with pe rmission. However, no r estoration or

excavation is allowed at the site on Fridays.

7 N o c oncessions w ill b e gi ven t o gr aduate s tudents. G raduate s tudents c an obt ain

permission f or s tudy or r esearch on ar chaeological s ites t hrough h is or her supervisor’s

8. No concession will be granted to any expedition director who does not have good
experience in the field.

Responsibilities after application approval:

1. After the application has been approved by the Permanent Committee, and security
clearance h as bee n i ssued, T he D epartment of F oreign A rchaeological M issions w ill then
notify, in writing, the Sector of the Egyptian Antiquities of the SCA and the mission director.

2. The Department of Excavations of the SCA will assign inspectors, who have been trained
in recognized fieldschools, to accompany the mission.

3. Before excavation work the head of the mission is required to submit two reports confirming
the bor ders of t he ex cavation ar ea b oth s igned b y the d irector of t he m ission an d t he

4. The inspector must send a monthly report on the work progress.

5. The director of the mission must notify the Secretary General of the SCA immediately with
any new discoveries. The SCA will suspend the mission’s concession if formal notification is

6. The mission is responsible for providing adequate containers for storing and protecting the

7. T ransportation of t he artifacts f rom t he s ite t o m agazines or m useums w ill be at t he

mission’s expense.

8. D uring t he ex cavation season, t he s ecurity guards w orking on s ite will be pai d b y the
mission. However, they should be approved by the SCA site director.

9. Employment of recognized expert(s) in conservation and preservation is mandatory.

10. Restoration or site management programs for any archaeological site should be stated in
a d etailed r eport and s ubmitted t o the P ermanent Committee. T he c onservator m ay be
requested to discuss the methods of restoration or conservation.

11. The inspectorate will oversee all conservation work.

12. A m ember from t he C enter of R esearch an d Ma intenance of t he SCA n eeds t o

accompany missions that are working in the field of anthropology and geophysics. The final
report of such work should be submitted to the SCA.

13. Every precaution should be taken to protect the monuments during epigraphical work. A
copy of all epigraphical work should be submitted to the SCA.

14. F ive c opies of the m ission’s pr eliminary r eport, written in English, m ust be submitted t o
the SCA immediately after the end of the season, prior to the mission’s departure.

15. Within three months of the season’s completion a detailed report, written in either: French,
German, or English an d t ranslated into Arabic, i ncluding c opies of p hotographs, c harts and
plans must be sent to The Department of Foreign Archaeological Missions.

16. T he S CA r equests t hat eac h m ission donat es f ive c opies of r ecently p ublished b ooks,
written by t he m ission r egarding t he s ite, t o T he D epartment of F oreign Archaeological
Missions. They will be distributed to the libraries and the museums of the SCA.

17. E very ex pedition i s r esponsible f or t he c onservation of ar tifacts and t he r estoration of

tombs and t emples d iscovered by the ex pedition. Any expedition that f ails to c onserve t he
findings of t he pr evious s eason will n ot be a llowed t o r eturn t o t heir c oncession u ntil t he
conservation is complete.

Relationship between the SCA Inspector and the Mission:

1. The SCA will rotate the accompanying Inspectors every season; no mission has the right to
request an Inspector for consecutive seasons.

2. The mission is required to pay the SCA either:

C. 1500 LE / month for the overtime and transportation of inspectors who do not
live with the expedition.
b. 1000 LE /month for Inspectors who do live with the expedition.

3. The Inspectors are prohibited from accepting any cash rewards or getting involved in any
money transactions separate from those stated above.

4 Any problems concerning the behavior of the accompanying Inspector should be reported to
the Secretary General of the SCA.

New Policies:

1. For the upcoming ten years, new concessions will not be granted from Giza to Abu-Simbel.
Concessions will o nly be granted i n t his ar ea f or r estoration, pr eservation, ar chaeological
survey, documentation and epigraphical work.

2. New applications for excavation concessions will be granted only for the Western Desert,
Eastern Desert and the Delta for the next ten years.

3. The SCA requires that the mission publishes the site within five years after work has been
completed. T he D irector a nd I nstitution b acking an y m ission t hat do es not c omply will be
denied any future concessions.

4. It is absolutely prohibited for any member of a mission to be involved with dealers of stolen
artifacts. Mem bers of f oreign m issions ar e ex pected t o yield any, information t hey have
regarding stolen artifacts to the Department of Stolen Artifacts. People who are found by court
evidence t o be involved with s tolen artifacts w ill b e r emoved f rom t he ex cavation. I f t he
director is involved, the mission will be terminated.

5. E gypt will n ot c ooperate w ith an y m useum or i nstitution w ho bu ys s tolen a rtifacts from


Magdy El-Ghandour
General Director, Foreign and Egyptian Missions Affairs

Dr. Zahi Hawass

Secretary General, SCA



Ratified by the 11 ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, October 1996.


This Charter is intended to encourage the protection and management of underwater

cultural heritage in inland and inshore waters, in shallow seas and in the deep oceans. It
focuses on the specific attributes and circumstances of cultural heritage under water and
should be understood as a supplement to the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and
Management of Archaeological Heritage, 1990. The 1990 Charter defines the “archaeological
heritage” as that part of the material heritage in respect of which archaeological methods
provide primary information, comprising all vestiges of human existence and consisting of
places relating to all manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures, and remains
of all kinds, together with all the portable cultural material associated with them. For the
purposes of this Charter underwater cultural heritage is understood to mean the
archaeological heritage which is in, or has been removed from, an underwater environment.
It includes submerged sites and structures, wreck-sites and wreckage and their
archaeological and natural context.
By its very character the underwater cultural heritage is an international resource. A large
part of the underwater cultural heritage is located in an international setting and derives
from international trade and communication in which ships and their contents are lost at a
distance from their origin or destination.
Archaeology is concerned with environmental conservation; in the language of resource
management, underwater cultural heritage is both finite and non-renewable. If underwater
cultural heritage is to contribute to our appreciation of the environment in the future, then
we have to take individual and collective responsibility in the present for ensuring its
continued survival.
Archaeology is a public activity; everybody is entitled to draw upon the past in informing
their own lives, and every effort to curtail knowledge of the past is an infringement of
personal autonomy. Underwater cultural heritage contributes to the formation of identity
and can be important to people’s sense of community. If managed sensitively, underwater
cultural heritage can play a positive role in the promotion of recreation and tourism.
Archaeology is driven by research, it adds to knowledge of the diversity of human culture
through the ages and it provides new and challenging ideas about life in the past. Such
knowledge and ideas contribute to understanding life today and, thereby, to anticipating
future challenges.
Many marine activities, which are themselves beneficial and desirable, can have unfortunate

consequences for underwater cultural heritage if their effects are not foreseen.
Underwater cultural heritage may be threatened by construction work that alters the shore
and seabed or alters the flow of current, sediment and pollutants. Underwater cultural
heritage may also be threatened by insensitive exploitation of living and non-living
resources. Furthermore, inappropriate forms of access and the incremental impact of
removing “souvenirs” can have a deleterious effect.
Many of these threats can be removed or substantially reduced by early consultation with
archaeologists and by implementing mitigatory projects. This Charter is intended to assist in
bringing a high standard of archaeological expertise to bear on such threats to underwater
cultural heritage in a prompt and efficient manner.
Underwater cultural heritage is also threatened by activities that are wholly undesirable
because they are intended to profit few at the expense of many. Commercial exploitation of
underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation is fundamentally incompatible with the
protection and management of the heritage. This Charter is intended to ensure that all
investigations are explicit in their aims, methodology and anticipated results so that the
intention of each project is transparent to all.
Article 1 – Fundamental Principles
The preservation of underwater cultural heritage in situ should be considered as a first
Public access should be encouraged.
Non-destructive techniques, non-intrusive survey and sampling should be encouraged in
preference to excavation.
Investigation must not adversely impact the underwater cultural heritage more than is
necessary for the mitigatory or research objectives of the project.
Investigation must avoid unnecessary disturbance of human remains or venerated sites.
Investigation must be accompanied by adequate documentation.
Article 2 – Project Design
Prior to investigation a project must be prepared, taking into account:
• the mitigatory or research objectives of the project;
• the methodology to be used and the techniques to be employed;
• anticipated funding;
• the time-table for completing the project;
• the composition, qualifications, responsibility and experience of the investigating team;
• material conservation;
• site management and maintenance;
• arrangements for collaboration with museums and other institutions;
• documentation;
• health and safety;
• report preparation;

• deposition of archives, including underwater cultural heritage removed during
• dissemination, including public participation.
The project design should be revised and amended as necessary.
Investigation must be carried out in accordance with the project design. The project design
should be made available to the archaeological community.
Article 3 – Funding
Adequate funds must be assured in advance of investigation to complete all stages of the
project design including conservation, report preparation and dissemination. The project
design should include contingency plans that will ensure conservation of underwater cultural
heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption in anticipated
Project funding must not require the sale of underwater cultural heritage or the use of any
strategy that will cause underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation to be
irretrievably dispersed.
Article 4 – Time-table
Adequate time must be assured in advance of investigation to complete all stages of the
project design including conservation, report preparation and dissemination. The project
design should include contingency plans that will ensure conservation of underwater cultural
heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption in anticipated
Article 5- Research objectives, methodology and techniques
Research objectives and the details of the methodology and techniques to be employed
must be set down in the project design. The methodology should accord with the research
objectives of the investigation and the techniques employed must be as unintrusive as
Post-fieldwork analysis of mail rs and documentation is integral to all investigation;
adequate provision for this analysis must be made in the project design.
Article 6 – Qualifications, responsibility and experience
All persons on the investigating team must be suitably qualified and experienced for their
project roles. They must be fully briefed and understand the work required.
All intrusive investigations of underwater cultural heritage will only be undertaken under the
direction and control of a named underwater archaeologist with mail rs qualifications
and experience appropriate to the investigation.
Article 7 – Preliminary investigation
All intrusive investigations of underwater cultural heritage must be preceded and informed
by a site assessment that evaluates the vulnerability, significance and potential of the site.
The site assessment must encompass background studies of available historical and
archaeological evidence, the archaeological and environmental characteristics of the site

and the consequences of the intrusion for the long term stability of the area affected by
Article 8 – Documentation
All investigation must be thoroughly documented in accordance with current professional
standards of archaeological documentation.
Documentation must provide a comprehensive record of the site, which includes the
provenance of underwater cultural heritage moved or removed in the course of
investigation, field notes, plans and drawings, photographs and records in other media.
Article 9 – Material conservation
The material conservation programme must provide for treatment of archaeological remains
during investigation, in transit and in the long term.
Material conservation must be carried out in accordance with current professional standards.
Article 10 – Site management and maintenance
A programme of site management must be prepared, detailing measures for protecting and
managing in situ underwater cultural heritage in the course of an upon termination of
fieldwork. The programme should include public information, reasonable provision for site
mail rs d n, monitoring and protection against interference. Public access to in situ
underwater cultural heritage should be promoted, except where access is incompatible with
protection and management.
Article 11 – Health and safety
The health and safety of the investigating team and third parties is paramount. All persons
on the investigating team must work according to a safety policy that satisfies relevant
statutory and professional requirements and is set out in the project design.
Article 12 – Reporting
Interim reports should be made available according to a time-table set out in the project
design, and deposited in relevant public records.
Reports should include:
• an account of the objectives;
• an account of the methodology and techniques employed;
• an account of the results achieved;
• recommendations concerning future research, site management and curation of
underwater cultural heritage removed during the investigation.
Article 13 – Curation
The project archive, which includes underwater cultural heritage removed during
investigation and a copy of all supporting documentation, must be deposited in an
institution that can provide for public access and permanent curation of the archive.
Arrangements for deposition of the archive should be agreed before investigation
commences, and should be set out in the project design. The archive should be prepared in
accordance with current professional standards.

The scientific integrity of the project archive must be assured; deposition in a number of
institutions must not preclude reassembly to allow further research. Underwater cultural
heritage is not to be traded as items of commercial value.
Article 14 – Dissemination
Public awareness of the results of investigations and the significance of underwater cultural
heritage should be promoted through popular presentation in a range of media. Access to
such presentations by a wide audience should not be prejudiced by high charges.
Co-operation with local communities and groups is to be encouraged, as is co-operation
with communities and groups that are particularly associated with the underwater cultural
heritage concerned. It is desirable that investigations proceed with the consent and
endorsement of such communities and groups.
The investigation team will seek to involve communities and interest groups in
investigations to the extent that such involvement is compatible with protection and
management. Where practical, the investigation team should provide opportunities for the
public to develop archaeological skills through training and education.
Collaboration with museums and other institutions is to be encouraged. Provision for visits,
research and reports by collaborating institutions should be made in advance of
A final synthesis of the investigation must be made available as soon as possible, having
regard to the complexity of the research, and deposited in relevant public records.
Article 15 – International co-operation
International co-operation is essential for protection and management of underwater
cultural heritage and should be promoted in the interests of high standards of investigation
and research. International co-operation should be encouraged in order to make effective
use of archaeologists and other professionals who are mail rs d in investigations of
underwater cultural heritage. Programmes for exchange of professionals should be
considered as a means of disseminating best practice.

From: “Colin” <>
Subject: Survey Egypt
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:11:26 –0000

Hi Miss Janelle

Can we have more info regarding your project, Leslie (my wife) and I worked on the Sadana
Island shipwreck project which was in 30m+ of water between Hurghada and Safaga in 1996
and would be very interested in getting back to the area and working on another similar
project. We both had Egyptian work visas in our passports so it would be easy to get them
updated if needed. We also have an Egyptian contact living in Alexandria but who is a main
player in Egyptian maritime archaeology who could help/guide you through their red tape,
which can be a major headache.
We are both experienced archaeological divers and have been involved with NAS projects for
many years. My expertise is in early ship construction and underwater surveying and Leslie’s
is in computer applications used within archaeology, i.e., Graphics, databases etc.

Hope we can be of help/use to your project.


Colin & Leslie McKewan

”We are all mail rs in the wilderness of this world

and the best that we can find in our travels
is an honest friend”

R.L. Stevenson
From PlansandPhotos <> Sent Friday, March 16, 2007
11:13 am To Subject Ref BF07/420: Response to enquiry re P &
O steamer Carnatic (lost 1869)

Dear Ms. Harrison,

Thank you for your email. I have been through our records, but I
am afraid the Carnatic does not appear to be represented in our
collections. Plans for vessels built by the Samuda Brothers and even
Thames Iron Works are regrettably virtually non-existent. I am sorry I
have not been able to help you on this occasion.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Choong

Curator, Historic Photographs & Ship Plans Section

Tel: +44 (0)20 8312 8600. Fax: +44 (0)20 8317 0263

Historic photographs website:

Ships plans website:


Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily those of the National Maritime Museum or Royal Observatory

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, including replies and
forwarded copies (which may contain alterations) subsequently
transmitted from the National Maritime Museum or Royal Observatory
Greenwich, are confidential and solely for the use of the intended

If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this e-mail in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the IT Manager by
telephone on +44 (0)20 8312 6677 or via e-mail to,
including a copy of this message. Please then delete this email and
destroy any copies of it.

From FAA NACG Chart Sales <> Sent Friday, March 16,
2007 11:34 am To Subject Contact information change

This email is your confirmation that on Friday, March 16, 2007 at 7:34 AM Eastern Time, the
Contact/Billing information for User ID ‘’ was added or changed. Please review the following

User ID: missJanellee

Customer #:
Name: Janelle Harrison
Business/Org. Name:Janelle Harrison
Address Line 1: 606 Chantry Court
Address Line 2: Denmark Street
City: Bristol
Zip: BS1 5DH
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:

If you believe that someone made this change without your consent, please contact NACG

Thank You,
The FAA NACG Distribution Division

From FAA NACG Chart Sales <> Sent Friday, March 16,
2007 11:41 am To Subject Confirmation of your order

Here is a complete summary of your FAA NACG Chart Sales order.

One-Time Order Info

Customer #:
One-Time Order #: 4114529
Order Date: March 16, 2007
PO Number: missJanellee
Status: Paid
Billing Info Shipping Info – [shipping]



ID Product Name Edition Qty Price Subtotal Status

62001 5 1 $19.75 $19.75 Submitted
Total: $19.75

Should you have any additional questions, or notice any discrepancies, please contact NACG
immediately and reference receipt# T4114529.1.

Thank You,
The FAA NACG Distribution Division

For Assistance Email:

Monday – Friday Toll Free: (800) 638-8972 (Within the U.S.)
8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Telephone: (301) 436-8301
Eastern Time FAX: (301) 436-6829

FAA, National Aeronautical Charting Group
Distribution Division, ATO-W (AJW-3550)
Write: 10201 Good Luck Road
Glenn Dale, MD 20769-9700

From Rik Vercoe <> Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:14
pm To Subject RE: Hi- A question about The Carnatic

Hi Janelle,

The hull is still intact and covered in coral, which would lead me to
believe the hull itself is iron as there are no holes or missing wood
and the wooden planking is gone deck side.

I’ll do some more checking and let you know

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 21 March 2007 13:49
To: Rik Vercoe
Subject: Hi- A question about The Carnatic

Hi again,

Well I’ve been dong some research (on line only still) and I have been
stumped! I read one a few dive site pages I The Carnatic is She is of
iron framed planked construction- which is how a composite built ship is
described, but then in a book I have called The Advent of Steam,
Gardnier lists her as an iron hulled ship, making her not really a true
composite (I is what I wanted her to be)

Could you tell me form your memory of diving the site, whether the hull
was wood or iron? I know the frames were iron and the decking but I
wanted a wooden hull and I think I’ve got iron. It will still be a good
idssertation though.

Oh, and I contacted The National Maritime Museum’s Ship Plans and
drawings dept and they do not hold any ship plans of her or any ship
built by The Samuda Bros. Ahhhh! I really wanted I of “factual”
primary sources, oh well

Did you enjoy Innes talk on Submarines?


From Harry Tzalas <> Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:43 am
To Subject Re: A question about permits?

Hi Janelle,

Replying to your questions.

As far as I know to dive on any wreck or on any antiquities in Egypt you must have a proper
permit from the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo. After obtaining this permission you
have to get permission for every diver from the Security Authorities.

Some of our divers could be willing to help but you have to go through all this time consuming
bureaucratic formalities first.

Kind regards,

Harry wrote:

Hello Harry,

Well I have also been in contact with someone fro NAS who has a connection in
Egypt and I was told to contact this person for all me queries: Mr. Karim Helal,
Chairman of The Red Sea Diving and Water Sports Association at (info@h2o-

I was really hoping to find a few divers that would help me with a few measurements
but it looks like I have to go with my original plan of taking a stave down for scale
and photographing key parts of the vessel for survey documentation.

If you have any further information for me, I’d appreciate it, but now I know who I
need to email in Egypt.

Many thanks,

From PlansandPhotos <> Sent Thursday, March 22,

2007 12:16 pm To Subject Ref BF07/420: Response to follow-up
enquiry re P & O steamer Rangoon

Dear Ms. Harrison,

Had another look just to be sure, but I am afraid the answer is

still nothing as far as our plans collections are concerned. Sorry

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Choong

Curator, Historic Photographs & Ship Plans Section

Tel: +44 (0)20 8312 8600. Fax: +44 (0)20 8317 0263

Historic photographs website:

Ships plans website:
-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 17 March 2007 22:56
To: PlansandPhotos
Subject: Re: Ref BF07/420: Response to enquiry re P & O steamer Carnatic
(lost 1869)


So I guess that means you would have plans for Rangoon built by Samuda
Brothers either?

From Malvern Archaeological Diving Unit <> Sent

Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:43 pm To Subject NAS Part I Course
th th
– Chepstow – 17 & 18 March 2007

Hi Janelle,

It was good to see you at Chepstow last weekend, I we hope you enjoyed the course.

As promised, attached is a sketch of the site dived (site sketch.jpg), and a copy of all the
surveyed results obtained from the two dives in the quarry at the National Diving Centre
(Survey Results.xls).

You can see that 6 depths, plus 15 measurements were required to fix all 6 Control Points to
each other, and we actually made 34 measurements as double checks.

I averaged the duplicate measurements between Control Points, entered the data into Site
Recorder, and after ignoring the one short dimension CP3 to CP4, the attached file (cabin
cruiser cp.jpg) shows the result.

You can also see from the table of Survey Results, that of the 108 possible measurements
from the 6 Control Points to the 18 secondary tags on the Cabin Cruiser, we managed to
obtained 64 measurements, which was a very good effort. However as I hope you remember
from the weekend, 4 Direct Survey Measurements (DSM’s) are required for the 3D software
to function, and of the 18 secondary tags fixed to the Cabin Cruiser, only 9 have 4 or more
measurements to them, and one of those (P1) looks to have one measurements that is far too
long. Of the rest, more measurements would be required before the software can be made to

Have a play with the data & the software, and I hope you find it helpful when you eventually
come to survey your own site.

Kind regards.

Ian Cundy
Malvern Archaeological Diving Unit (MADU)

Tel:- 01684 574774

Fax:- 08700 509706
Web Site:-

From Sent Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:32 pm To Subject Antiqbook order: #19286/DAVID HOWARTH & - The Story
of P&O

Antiqbook has sent your order/inquiry message to: Rivermead Books
19 North St, Wilton, Wilts SP2 0HE, UK. Tel.: +44 (0)1722 744802
<Derek Myhill>:
**** Please use this address for your correspondence on your order or inquiry ****

I would like to order this book:

Booknumber: 19286
The Story of P&O: The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1986. 0-297-78965-1, ISBN: 0-297-78965-1. VG/VG,
black/cream-grey pictorial dj with gilt titles on spine, contents are clean & unmarked, quarto
224pp. A very overweight & oversized book so please check exact shipping costs directly with
Rivermead Books BEFORE ordering on the internet. Elaborately illustrated in colour & b/w.
Steam & sail; onward to India; Overland via Suez; cruising; crews & passengers; eastern
seas; Crimean War & the canal; Pax Brittanica; merger & expansion; endurance; end of
empire; changing patterns; local wars; a new era..
USD 5.00 [Appr.: EURO 4 | £UK 2.75 | JP¥ 603]

From Association <> Sent Sunday, March 25,

2007 5:42 pm To Subject FW: Student Project on The Carnatic

Karim Helal


Red Sea Association For Diving & Watersports

Sheraton Road Opposite Marriott Hotel
PO Box 461 Hurghada – Red Sea – Egypt
Tel: +2 065 3 447243
Fax: +2 065 3 447209 (under construction)

-----Original Message-----
From: Association []
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:41 PM
To: ‘jharris2@csusb.ed’
Cc: ‘H2O Mag’
Subject: RE: Student Project on The Carnatic

Hello Janelle,

Thank you for your e-mail, this sounds like an interesting project.
We will be more than happy to help. As you said this wreck is typically
dived from a live aboard and would probably need a few dives to complete
your task.
In any event, there is nor problem in terms of what you would like to do so
long as nothing is moved or touched and a proper brief is given to the dive
operator with whom you would be diving.

Please do not hesitate to let me know if we can be of any assistance.

Best of luck

Karim Helal



Red Sea Association For Diving & Watersports

Sheraton Road Opposite Marriott Hotel
PO Box 461 Hurghada – Red Sea – Egypt
Tel: +2 065 3 447243
Fax: +2 065 3 447209 (under construction)
-----Original Message-----
From: H2O Mag []
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:06 PM
To: Karim Helal
Subject: Fw: Student Project on The Carnatic

did u reply this one??????????

----- Original Message -----

From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Student Project on The Carnatic

Dear Mr. Karim Helal,

Hello, my name is Janelle. I am an MA student at The University of

Bristol, in Maritime Archaeology & History. I am also a recreational

I recently decided to write my dissertation on a 1869 P&O shipwreck called

The Carnatic- located off Hurghada, the Abu Nuhas reef.

I placed a posting for a few NAS divers to join me in an unofficial survey

of her (non-intrusive- just taking measurements with a tape measure and

taking photographs) I was contacted by a couple that have done work in The

Red Sea before and they have a contact in Egypt that suggested I email you

to discuss my plans.

Ideally, I would, like I said, like to set up some control points around
the shipwreck and then also some secondary points on the vessel to get the

measurements and create a 3D site map with GPS location etc.

As of now, I am still traveling alone, and it will take at least one

other person to take measurements. So it is looking unlikely that I will
be able to approach my dissertation project from this perspective, but I
felt I should contact you just in case I do get a person to help me.

I have been told by a few members of NAS (Nautical Archaeological Society)

that I wouldn’t even need a permit to do this. Is that true?

I know it is difficult to get to this dive site because most dive
operators only go there for one dive, once a week. I am going to have to
be creative and maybe contact many operators and go with each one when
they go (i.e. one goes on a Mon, another on a Wed, etc.)

It seems more than likely Sir, that I will only be taking photographs with

a stave (for scale) of various parts of the wreck like the keel, the steam

engine, the rudder, etc. unless I can perhaps hire a private dive guide
who will hold one end of a tape measure.

Are there any legal steps you would recommend for the process I have just
explained to you? This is at most just a small scale survey for a
dissertation, no funding, and I am certainly not planning on moving
anything or conducting any type of “excavation”.

I was hoping that if I found some help, we could just go down there and
measure. I wouldn’t run into any trouble doing that would I?

Any advise you can give me would be helpful.

Kind regards, Janelle

From “Kristian E. Volsing” <> Sent Monday, March 26, 2007

12:41 pm To Subject Items requested from the Caird Library

Dear Janelle Harrison

Thank you for your recent request to view items from the Caird Library at the National
Maritime Museum. We have the date of your intended visit recorded as 10 &11 April; please
note that Monday 9 April is a Bank Holiday and we will not be open. Your request tracking
numbers are: REQ-138, REQ-139, REQ-140.

Where available, the first three books and the first three manuscript items requested will be
retrieved for you in advance. The remaining items on the list can be requested on the day of
your visit, as can books located in the Caird Library reading room.

Some items in our collections are held in offsite storage and can take up to two weeks to
retrieve. Where it applies, this information is displayed on the catalogue record. Please
ensure that you have requested your items with enough time in advance for us to retrieve
them. We will retrieve up to 12 items located in offsite storage – for larger orders please
contact us directly.

About the Caird Library

Tel: +44 020 8312 6516

The Caird Library (see offers research facilities to visitors. Staff
are on hand to advise but are unable to undertake research for enquirers. Anyone over 16
years of age with a research enquiry can gain free access to the Library. Formal identification
is required on the day for entry. The Library is open Monday to Friday with Saturday being by
appointment only. Hours are 10.00–16.45, closed between 13.00 and 14.00 on Saturdays.
The Library is closed on Sundays, public holidays and during the third week of February.

Thanks again for your request; we wish you well in your research.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Kristian Volsing
Library Co-ordinator
National Maritime Museum

From Renee Orr <> Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 3:56 pm To Subject Items requested from the Caird Library

Dear Janelle Harrison,

Thank you for your recent request to view items from the Caird Library at the National
th th
Maritime Museum. We have the date of your intended visit recorded as the 9 and 10 of
April. However, please note that we are closed on Monday, 9 April for the Easter holiday.
th th th th
We’re closed on the following days: Friday 6 , Saturday 7 , Sunday 8 , and Monday 9 . We
open again on Tuesday 10 April.

Where available, the first three books and the first three manuscript items requested will be
retrieved for you in advance. The remaining items on the list can be requested on the day of
your visit, as can books located in the Caird Library reading room.

Please note that some items in our collections are held in offsite storage and can take up to
two weeks to retrieve. Where it applies, this information about the location of each item is
displayed on the catalogue record. Please ensure that you have requested your items with
enough time in advance for us to retrieve it.

About the Caird Library

Tel: +44 020 8312 6516

The Caird Library (see offers research facilities to visitors. Staff
are on hand to advise but are unable to undertake research for enquirers. Anyone over 16
years of age with a research enquiry can gain free access to the Library. Formal identification
is required on the day for entry. The Library is open Monday to Friday with Saturday being by
appointment only. Hours are 10.00–16.45, closed between 13.00 and 14.00 on Saturdays.
The Library is closed on Sundays, public holidays and during the third week of February.

Thanks again for your request; we wish you well in your research.

Yours faithfully,
Renee Orr.

Renee Orr
Digital Resources Librarian
Caird Library
National Maritime Museum
Ph: +44 020 8312 8624
From Paula <> Sent Monday, March 26, 2007 7:57 pm To “’by way of
Heather <>’” <> Subject RE: Ordering Crew Agreement

Dear Ms. Harrison:

Thank you for your e-mail of 26 March 2007 regarding the crew agreements of the vessel
Carnatic O.N. 47298 for 1869.

According to our index we hold the vessel’s crew agreements for voyages terminating in
1863, 69 (no log)

We search and photocopy or scan crew agreements subject to the following guidelines:

For Typical Vessels

The one hour research fee is based on a search of two years of crew agreements for one
vessel (or two vessels for one year). Crew agreements and official log books can contain
anywhere from 4 to 20 plus pages per voyage. You can estimate your cost based on this
information and the fees outlined below.

For Passenger Liners

If we identify the vessel you have requested as a passenger liner, we will contact you with
an estimate. Many passenger liners carried hundreds of crew members and produced
extensive crew agreements for each of several voyages during the course of a year.
Therefore you must allow for a research fee of up to three hours per vessel, per year, and a
much larger quantity of photocopies.


$40.00 per hour minimum research fee

$.50 per page for photocopies

$2.50 per scanned page

Air mail and handling charges (e.g. 30 pages or under to U.K. = $6.00)


We recommend you make payment by Visa or Mastercard, but we also accept bank drafts
issued in Canadian funds. We send packages by air mail only. We are working towards
establishing a secure site for accepting credit cards; in the meantime, we recommend that
you send your credit card number and date of expiry in separate e-mail messages, or by
telephone, fax, or regular mail. Please ensure that you include your complete mailing
address with your request.

Payment Authorization Required Before Research Request Can Proceed

Before we can proceed with any research request, we must have your credit card
authorization or bank draft in hand.

Photocopies and Scans

All photocopies are reduced from the original size of the agreement 11” x 17” to 8 ½” x 11”.
We do not copy blank pages in the agreements or the log books. Quality of the copies varies,
depending on the condition of the original document. Many 19 century crew agreements
were produced on large sheets of paper that do not fit on a scanner. We photocopy these
large sheets in sections, but we do not scan them.

The MHA’s Crew Agreement Collection

The Maritime History Archive holds approximately 75 percent of the surviving crew
agreements and official log books of British registered vessels for the periods 1863-1938 and
1951-1976. The National Archives, Kew, has retained all surviving documents prior to 1861,
and for 1939-1950, as well as a 10 percent sample in the 1861-1938 and 1951-1976
periods. All surviving documents for 1861-1862 and years ending in ‘5’ (e.g. 1925 ) are held
at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

Not all Voyages Survived

It is essential to note that crew agreements are filed by the year in which a voyage
terminated. And although the existence of crew agreements for any indicated year is
confirmed by our indexes, records for all of a vessel’s voyages for that year may not be part of
the collection. Thus despite holding the documents of a vessel for the desired year, we may
not have the particular voyage you require. Unfortunately there is no way to determine the
existence of records for a particular voyage until we begin the research process. If you ask to
have a particular year or voyage searched, you will be charged the $40.00 fee.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Paula Marshall Senior Clerk

Maritime History Archive

Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. John’s, NL A1C 5S7 Canada

Web Site:

From Paula <> Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:13 pm To Subject RE: RE: Ordering Crew Agreement

Dear Ms. Harrison:

The 3hrs. research is only an estimate of the research time if it is a

passenger vessel. Some passenger vessels have up to 2 boxes or more of
crew agreements and we have to allow for scanning or copying time.

The passenger vessel Carnatic O.N. 47289 for 1869 will only require 1 hr.
research time. If you ask to have a particular year or voyage searched, you
will be charged the $40.00 fee. I am sorry, but that is our policy.

Documents scanned and sent by e-mail are $2.50 per page. The agreements are
on very large sheets and would have to be scanned in parts, approx. 40

Payment Authorization Required Before Research Request Can Proceed

Before we can proceed with any research request, we must have your credit
card authorization or bank draft in hand.

Please let me know if require us to proceed.

Paula Marshall

From Harry Tzalas <> Sent Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:59 pm To Subject Re: A question about permits?

Hi Janelle,

Bureaucracy in Egypt moves very slowly and I very much doubt that you have sufficient time
to get the necessary permissions from the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo and then
the Security permissions for your divers.

On the other hand you do not have the volunteers divers available so you lack the basic
details needed to ask for a permit.

But one never knows in Egypt and before saying that I do not believe that you stand any
chance I would suggest that you write explaining your case to:

Mr. Magdy El Ghandour

Director General at the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo
For the Foreign Missions

Write a short message stating who you are, your nationality and exactly what you want to
do...and good luck.


Harry Tzalas wrote:

Hi Harry,

Well I’ve emailed a gentleman that has said as long as I don’t touch anything what I
plan to do is fine. He is from a non-governmental, non-profit organization for diving in
the Red Sea:

As of now I can’t even take basic measurements of the site because I haven’t found
any volunteers for a number of reasons:

1) I can not pay anyone to help me

2) I can not pay for the volunteers diving costs

3) I can not afford to charter a boat so we have to go out on a normal recreational

diving operation boat, and that cost a lot

4) the dive operators only make trips to the site one day a week for one dive making
work on the site very short and costly for each person who might be involved

I would love to really tackle this project with a team and create a 3D site map using
Site Recorder but it is not necessary for my dissertation. I am still going to
‘recreationally” dive the site as much as possible and take photographs and sketch a
site map myself if the “team” and “permit” falls through.

If I were to pursue the bureaucratic red tape route so that some of your divers could
help me with taking measurements, do I have enough time from now until my
planned trip in June 2007 to take care of the permit?

And the website is down and I have tried calling one telephone number

for them from the Internet with a wrong number message so I was wondering if you
could forward the contact details I would need to apply for a permit.

I know you are a very busy person, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer
my questions and to help me with so much.

Hope to hear from you soon,


----- Original Message -----

From: Harry Tzalas
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:43 am
Subject: Re: A question about permits?
Hi Janelle,

Replying to your questions.

As far as I know to dive on any wreck or on any antiquities in

Egypt you must have a proper permit from the Supreme Council of
Antiquities in Cairo. After obtaining this permission you have to
get permission for every diver from the Security Authorities.

Some of our divers could be willing to help but you have to go

through all this time consuming bureaucratic formalities first.

Kind regards,
Harry wrote:
Hello Harry,

Well I have also been in contact with someone fro NAS who has a
connection in Egypt and I was told to contact this person for all
me queries: Mr. Karim Helal, Chairman of The Red Sea Diving and
Water Sports Association at (

I was really hoping to find a few divers that would help me with a
few measurements but it looks like I have to go with my original
plan of taking a stave down for scale and photographing key parts
of the vessel for survey documentation.

If you have any further information for me, I’d appreciate it, but
now I know who I need to email in Egypt.

Many thanks,

From Sent Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:04 pm To

Subject [Spam] Your results from the British Library Integrated Catalogue

Date : 31/03/2007

The catalogue records below were selected by a researcher using the British Library
Integrated Catalogue.


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL

OLIVEIRA, Benjamin. A few observations upon the works

of the Isthmus of Suez Canal, made during a visit in
April, 1863. ([London, 1863.])


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


ARROW, Frederick, A Fortnight in Egypt at the opening

of the Suez Canal. (pp. 67. Smith & Ebbs: London,


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


BADGER, George Percy. A Visit to the Isthmus of Suez

Canal Works ... With a map. (pp. 71. Smith, Elder &
Co.: London, 1862.)


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


NORWOOD, Charles Morgan. The Aspects of the Question as

altered by improvements in Steam Navigation. The Suez
Canal. [A letter to the Editor of “The Times.”]

Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


BALFOUR, John Patrick Douglas, Between two seas. The

creation of the Suez Canal. [With particular reference
to Ferdinand de Lesseps. With plates and a map.] (pp.
xiv. 306. John Murray: London, [1968.])


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


ENGLAND. Foreign Office. [Confidential prints and

telegrams respecting the Suez Canal Commission and the
right of free passage through the Suez Canal.]
([London,] 1885-87.)


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL

England. [Miscellaneous Public Documents. (Domestic

Transactions, Royal Messages, Speeches from the Throne,
etc.). III. Chronological Series. Elizabeth II. [1952-
.] ] Correspondence exchanged between Mr. Bulganin and
Sir Anthony Eden during September and October, 1956 [on
the Suez Canal question], etc. (pp. 9. London, [1957.])


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


PRICE, John Spencer. The early history of the Suez

Canal. (Revised edition.). (pp. 43. Privately printed:
London, [1875?])


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


Saint Hilaire, J. Barthelemy. Egypt and the Great Suez

Canal : a narrative of travels / (London : Richard
Bentley, 1857.)


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


ROBERTS, Frank Harold Hanna. Egypt and the Suez Canal.

(pp. iv. 68. pl. 25. Washington, 1943.)


Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


Great Britain. War Office. Egypt (Normal series)

1:100,000 , Series GSGS 4085. Scale 1:100 000.
([London] : War Office, 1940-1956.)

Maps MOD GSGS 4085

Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


Egypt—Scale 1 : 25,000. M.D.R. 506. Scale 1: 25 000.


Maps 64355.(72.)

Note for record is :SUEZ CANAL


From Calcutta to London by the Suez Canal. (Calcutta :
[s.n.], 1869)

T 38478


From Sent Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:39 pm To

Subject [Spam] Your results from the British Library Integrated Catalogue

Date : 31/03/2007

The catalogue records below were selected by a researcher using the British Library Integrated


Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 000435216

Author – personal BOURNE, John, Civil Engineer.

Title A Treatise on the Screw Propeller, with various

suggestions of improvement. [With plates.]

Publisher/year pp. viii. 243. xliv. Longman & Co.: London, 1852.

Physical mail . 4º.

Subject Propellers.

Other editions [A Treatise on the Screw Propeller, with various

suggestions of improvement. [With plates.]] pp. x. 247.
xliv. Pl. XVIII. Longman & Co.: London, 1855. 4º.

Other editions [A Treatise on the Screw Propeller, with various

suggestions of improvement. [With plates.]] pp. xxii.
428. cxxiii. Longmans & Co.: London, 1867 [1865-67].

Holdings note [Another copy.] Held in OIOC.

Shelfmark 8805.f.14.

Shelfmark W 4175

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 003499441

Author – personal STEVENS, Francis B.

Title The First Steam Screw Propeller Boats to Navigate the

Waters of any Country. (Reprint from The Stevens

Publisher/year pp. 30. New York, [1893.]

Physical mail . 8º.


Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 010562749

Title The Hand-book to the steam engine, including

atmospheric railways, the electric printing telegraph,
and screw propeller. Illustrated by wood engravings.

Publisher/year London : printed for the proprietors; and sold by all

booksellers, 1846 (Knight and Son [printer]

Physical mail . Iv,116p. : ill. ; 15cm. 12°.

General note Printer’s name from colophon.

Binding information With the original covers, bound in.

Subject Steam-engines.

Subject Traction-engines.

Shelfmark RB.23.a.23867

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 001811962

Title On the Introduction and Progress of the Screw

Propeller: with Statistics of the Comparative Economy
of Screw Ships and Paddle Vessels for Her Majesty’s

Publisher/year London, Greenwich printed, 1856.

Physical mail . 8º.

Added Entry INTRODUCTION main entry

Shelfmark C.194.a.186.

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 003080750

Author – personal RÉVY, Julian John.

Title The Progressive Screw as a propeller in navigation.

Publisher/year London, 1860.

Physical mail . 8º.

Shelfmark 8806.d.51.(6.)

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 010560623

Author – personal Chappell, Edward, 1792-1861.

Title Reports relative to Smith’s patent screw propeller, as

used on board the Archimedes steam vessel, in various
trials with Her Majesty’s steam packet Widgeon, at
Dover, and subsequently in a circumnavigation of Great
Britain. To which are subjoined, opinions on the same
subject, conveyed in letters from many distinguished
persons. By Captain Edward Chappell, R.N. ...

Publisher/year London : James Ridgway ... and Smith, Elder and Co.
..., 1840 (Blatch and Lampert, printers)

Physical mail . [2],85,8p.,[1] folded plate. ; 22cm. 8°.

General note With With advertisements for works published by James

Ridgway at end.

General note Printers’ name from colophon.

Person as subject Smith, Francis Pettit, 1808-1874.

Person as subject Ridgway, James.

Shelfmark RB.23.a.22418

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 003048479

Author – personal RAWSON, Robert.

Title The Screw-Propeller; an investigation of its

geometrical and physical properties, and its
application to the propulsion of vessels.

Publisher/year London, 1851.

Physical mail . 8º.

Shelfmark 8805.ff.6.

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 003946716

Author – personal WILSON, Robert, F.R.S.E.

Title The Screw Propeller: who invented it? With

illustrations. (Appendix.).

Publisher/year Glasgow, 1860.

Physical mail . 8º.

Other editions [The Screw Propeller: who invented it? With

illustrations. (Appendix.)] pp. 82. T. Murray & Son:

Glasgow, 1880. 8º.

Shelfmark 8805.c.75.(9.)

Note for record is :screw propeller


System number 003534330

Author – personal STURDEE, Alfred B.

Title The twin stern steamer with a protected propeller;

being an enunciation of the contemplated advantages of
a new form of hull for propulsion of the screw, etc.
Corrected edition.

Link note In : London.-Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry

of all Nations. Exhibition of the works of industry of
all nations, 1851. Prospectuses, etc. Vol. 4. 1851,
etc. 8º., etc.

Shelfmark 7956.e.


From Martin Salmon <> Sent Tuesday, April 3, 2007 10:28 am

To Subject Survey Reports

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your enquiry concerning Lloyd’s survey reports. I am happy to
tell you that we have retrieved the following reports for you:

• LSR London 876 Hyne

• LSR Glasgow 1759 Sumatra
• LSR London 1858 Sumatra

Unfortunatelt the survey report for Glasgow 2408, Sumatra, does not appear to have
survived. Please contact me to let me know whether you would like to come to the Museum to
view these manuscripts, or if you would prefer to have copies made (where I will send you an
invoice). I look forward too hearing from you. With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Martin Salmon

Manuscripts Cataloguer
National Maritime Museum
Park Row
SE10 9NF
Tel +44 (0)20 8312 6670

From Martin Salmon <> Sent Wednesday, April 4, 2007 9:14 am
To Subject RE: Survey Reports

Hello Janelle,
I’ll make sure the survey reports are available in the Caird Library for your visit on 11/12
April. We look forward to seeing you then, kind regards,
Yours sincerely,

Martin Salmon ,Manuscripts Department, National Maritime Museum

Subject: Voluntary help for hurghada
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:33:26 –0400
From: Add to Address Book


Im a member of NAS and would be interested in working on this wreck. I too am concerned at
the diving restrictions (1 dvive twice per week). To take accurate measurements of a 90m
wreck with these restrictions might be a bit much to ask for. Is there to be surface supply of
air? A wreck at 27 metres deep gives you about 45 mins maximum no decompression and
not a great deal of time to take a great many measurement including setup time. Just what
level of set is the project? Are datums set, grid in place or is this a start from the beginning

I look forward to hearing from you and might be interested in going.

Bob Ross
Nautical archeaologist

From The Dive Tribe <> Sent Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:32 am
To Subject RE: Private Boat Hire- for The Carnatic

Dear Janelle,

Thank you for the e-mail. We would love to help you any way we can, but unfortunately you
have chosen the worst week to come because the weather forecast for the next 2 weeks
looks very bad for Abu Nuhas trips. Now you mentioned going next week, so may be the
weather can change. It will have to be a short notice trip if we get better weather. Now the
boat fee unfortunately is 300 euro and I cannot make it any less, the boat just costs a lot.
Doing 4 dives on the wreck could be possible if it is a very early start, but I have to check with
our dive staff to check the depth and time limits for a safe dive plan. All we can do now is wait
for better weather. What you can also do is may be give us a call daily on our diving centre
number 012 3258277, around 3 p.m. I normally by then have a rough plan for the following
day, and weather conditions


Tanja Romanenkow


The Dive Tribe

From Liveaboards-hurghada <> Sent Tuesday,
June 5, 2007 9:27 am To Subject Re: col 070623


We have place on that safari, so I will book you in.

Which day do you arrive?
I send a passengerlist in this e-mail, which you can fill out and
send back to us.
We also need your passport copy for the safari license 

Sunny regards,

From The Dive Tribe <> Sent Friday, June 8, 2007 11:49 am
To Subject RE: RE: Private Boat Hire- for The Carnatic

Dear Janelle,

It looks like the weather will improve on Sunday, I will ask the guides not to go to Abu Nuhas
before then, and check with the guests if there are other interested in 2 dives at the Carnatic.
If you are still interested please let me know.


Tanja Romanenkow


The Dive Tribe

From The Dive Connection <> Sent Wednesday, June 20,

2007 4:25 pm To Subject AW: mail von Janelle Harrison

Hallo Janelle,

We are going regularly to Abu Nuhas and the famous wrecks. From El Gouna it’s more or
less 1 hour 45 minutes by boat. This we offer in the normal dive packages – if the wind is not
th th
too strong. At the moment we don’t have a forecast for the 26 or 27 , this we can see 1 – 2
days in advance. The last decision we make in the morning when we can see exactly how the
wind is going.

We would like to help you – the best thing we stay in contact and check the situation
according to the weather possibility. And if there any possibility for the guests and the boats to
go to Abu Nuhas in the meanwhile I will block the Carnatic.

It would be nice if you can give me some informations about your diving experience:
certification level, amount of dives, date of last dive. Are you nitrox certified?

About the costs: Each day diving (includes 2 dives, 12 or 15 L Steel tanks and weights) cost
55 €. There is a governmental tax of – at the moment - € 1,60/person/day. Full rental
equipment is € 25,--/day.

For any further questions or information please feel free to contact us any time.

A lot of greetings from the sunny El Gouna

Andrea Schubert
Operations Manager

The Dive Connection

Panorama Bungalows Resort
El Gouna, Red Sea, Egypt


From magdy el ghandour <> Sent Sunday, June 24, 2007

12:46 pm To Subject RE: surveying a shipwreck in the Red Sea
securty form.doc
Supreme Council of Antiquities
Magdy El Ghandour

Department of Foreign Archaeological

Mission’s Affairs and P .Committee
Cairo 24/6/2007

Dear Miss Janelle Harrisan :

In according with your application to survey a shipwreck in the red sea for your dissertation
paper for your Masters degree .
I would like to inform you that your application is still under study , but please requirements
are needed :
C. an official letter from your university ( advisor) .
2- in order to finalizing the security permission (Military area ) please you must provide us with
C. 4 photographs .
B. security form to be fill in . (find attached)
C. copy of the passport .
I do hope to hear from you soon .
Best regard.

Your sincerely
Magdy El Ghandour

Arab Republic of Egypt
Ministry of Culture Security Office
Supreme Council of Antiquities

Security form
Please complete clearly in block capitals

Name: (surname, Father & Grandfather in Capital Latin Letters)

Nationality: ………………….. Religion: …………………..
Date & Place of Birth: …………………..
Profession Anthropologist: …………………..
Address of Residence in Egypt: …………………..
Date & No. of Passport: …………………..
Cause of visit: …………………..
Duration of visit: …………………..
Which organization sent for you and why? …………………..

What is your relationship with the Antiquities Service? …………………..

Where & what is your job now? ……………………………

Do you belong to any foreign mission? ……………………..
What mission is it? …………………………………………….
What is the address of that mission? ………………………………………..
For whom do you work here? ……………………......................
How long do you intend to stay? …………………………………
Have you ever visited Egypt? When & Why? …………………..
Who pays you and how much? …………………………………..
(Attach five photographs of applicant)

General Director,
Security Office
Signature of the foreigner

From Mike Bevan <> Sent Tuesday, July 3, 2007 10:11 am To Subject RE: Off-Site Items Pre-Order List

Dear Janelle,

I have checked the list of manuscript items that you are interested in
viewing. Of the list 8 out of 11 of these are actually onsite at the
main museum.
These are:





P&O/5/409 ****JOURNALS 1869-70 KB


P&O/100/15 BIO’S 1840-1960, SWW MANUSCRIPT


The following are at Kidbrooke and will still take in the region of two
weeks to be retrieved: MRI/M/13, P&O/93/1 and P&O/5/408. In light of
this perhaps you would prefer to come and visit earlier and simply not
consult the remaining 3. I shall make a visit to Kidbrooke this
Wednesday should you still wish to view these extra manuscripts. Please
let me know if you would like to make alterations to your initial plan
to visit (in light of this).

Best wishes

Mike Bevan
Manuscripts Department
National Maritime Museum
Tel: 020 8312 6672

from PlansandPhotos <> Sent Tuesday, July 3, 2007

12:04 pm To Subject Ref BF07/420: Response to enquiry re
Massilia (1860) et al

Dear Janelle,

Thanks for your email. We have plans for two of the vessels on
your list, the Bangalore (1867) and the Geelong (1865), both built by
Denny. There are general arrangement plans for both vessels, but only
lines for the Bangalore. You can either arrange an appointment with us
to view these items at our outstation (we cannot have them sent to the
Caird), or we can send you an ordering form for photocopies. If you
could let me know which you would prefer, I will get things moving.
Please note that if you want the forms we will need you to provide a

postal address.

With regards the prints and drawings items you want to see,
these are out of my remit as they do not come under historic photographs
or plans. The people to contact about accessing these items are our
Picture Library, and they can be reached at ‘’
or on 020 8312 6631. I am not sure what their policy is on digital
photography, so it would be worth checking as there is currently a
photography ban in force in our section. Hope this is of some use.

Andrew Choong
Curator, Historic Photographs & Ship Plans Section
Tel: +44 (0)20 8312 8600. Fax: +44 (0)20 8317 0263
Historic photographs website:
Ships plans website:

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 03 July 2007 08:49
To: PlansandPhotos
Subject: Re: Ref BF07/420: Response to enquiry re P & O steamer Carnatic
(lost 1869)
Dear Andrew,

Since their seems to be no ship plans for the Carnatic or Rangoon, two
ships built by Samuda Brothers in the 1860’s I was wondering if you
could check to see if you have lines plans for any of these P&O
iron/steam vessels?

Massilia 1860
Golconda 1866
Delhi 1864
Baroda 1864
Sunda 1866
Bangalore 1867
Travancore 1868
Tanjore 1865
Geelong 1866

I do not have the ships official numbers yet nor the individual builders
of these ships but their tonnage and design is very similar to the
Carnatic ( two masts, iron/steam, & screw)
th th
I will be at Caird from 17 of July until the 20 finalizing my
dissertation research and anything on these ships you have would be
extremely helpful.
Also, I have been through the drawings catalogue and I would like to
take digital photos of the following items:

1PAH9079- CARNATIC 1862

1PAH9087- GOLCONDA 1863
1PAI6959- SYRIA 1868
1PAH9101- NYANZA 1864
1PAH9059- MOOLTAN (1860?) BUILT 1861
1PAH9056- MASSILIA (1860?) BUILT 1861
1PAH9125- HINDOSTAN 1869



Base data at 18 April 1863. Last amended February 2003.

indicates entries changed during P&O Group service.

Type Passenger liner

P&O Group service 1863-1869
P&O Group status Owned by parent company
Former name(s) Was to have been named Mysore
Registered owners,
managers and operators
The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Builders Samuda Brothers
Yard Poplar
Country UK
Yard number
Registry London, UK
Official number 47298
Signal letters VNCF
Classification society
Gross tonnage 2,014 grt
Net tonnage 1,776 nrt
Length 89.79m (294.7ft)
Breadth 11.61m (38.1ft)
Depth 5.36m (17.6ft)
Draught 5.64m (18.5ft)
Construction (if not steel) Iron
Engines 4 cylinder vertical tandem steam engine
Engine builders Humphrys, Tennant and Dykes
Works London
Country UK
Power 2,442 ihp
Propulsion 1 screw
Speed 12 knots (trials: 13.9 knots)
Passenger capacity
Cargo capacity
Employment Suez/India service


06.12.1862: Launched.
24.03.1863: Registered.
18.04.1863: Completed.
25.04.1863: Ran trials in Stokes Bay.
27.04.1863: Maiden voyage Southampton/Alexandria.
27.06.1863: Left Southampton via the Cape for Galle and Calcutta, for
Calcutta/Suez service.
1864/1865: Bombay/Suez and Bombay/Hong Kong services.
09.09.1865: Permanently on Bombay/Aden/Suez service.
13.09.1869: Wrecked on an unchartered reef 5 kilometres (3 miles) north of the
island of Jabal at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez, southbound for
Aden and Bombay. As the weather remained calm it seemed the
best policy to keep all hands on board, but she suddenly parted
amidships and 5 European passengers, 11 Asian crew and 10
European crew were lost.
14.09.1869: Survivors rescued by P&O’s Sumatra. Salvage operations were
commenced and a large part of the cargo was recovered, including
specie worth £40,000.
03.1870: The wreck slipped off the reef and sank into deep water.


“Illustrated London News”, 16 October 1869

The wreck of the Peninsular and Oriental Company’s steam-ship Carnatic - having
struck, on Monday, the 13th ult, an hour after midnight, upon a reef of coral off the
desolate isle of Shadwan, or Shadooan, at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez - has been
related in former accounts. We have been favoured by one of the passengers, Major J
U Champain, RE, with a sketch of the position of the wreck and the people, some
clinging to the foremast, others standing up to their waists in the sea, after the vessel
broke asunder, on the Tuesday. Major Champain also contributes to our Journal the
following narrative, which will be read with interest :–
“At ten o’clock on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 12, the steamship Carnatic, a
magnificent vessel of 1,700 tons, commanded by Captain Jones, left Suez on her way
to Bombay. There were on board, altogether, some 230 souls and a valuable cargo.
The weather was lovely and, with a fair breeze, we went at ten or twelve knots an hour.
About one o’clock on Monday morning we were roused from our sleep by a smart
shock, and, going on deck, we saw what had happened. The night was brilliantly clear,
though the moon had set. The Ushruffi lighthouse, which we had passed an hour
before, on our starboard side, showed brightly on our port quarter. Close under our
bows was a long line of white surf, apparently extending at right angles to our direction
several hundred yards on each side of the ship, and high in front of us loomed the
island of Shadooan, some 600 ft. above the sea at its most elevated peak. At night the
passengers were of opinion that the island was not more than a mile or a mile and a
half distant; but when day broke it was evidently much farther, and I shall not be very
wrong if I say it was three or four miles from us in a direct line. On examining our
position, we found that the vessel, running before the wind at about eleven knots, had
struck full on a large coral reef (plainly marked on the chart), and had forced herself
into a most critical position. The reef itself lay exactly ahead of the ship, and was about
a square mile in extent; nearly out of water at low tide, but about 4 ft. under at high
water. Its surface was almost level, though here and there a few small rocks rose
above the water-line when the tide was out. The wind was moderate and the sea by no
means rough; but, lying on the weather side of the shoal, the vessel was bumped about
rather ominously. From the moment of striking every effort was made to get the ship
off into deep water, there being at the time about 4 ft. under our bows, 8 ft. or 10 ft.
abreast the engines on the starboard side, deep water just above the foremast on the
port side, and any depth under our stern. The whole ship, besides sloping steeply from

bow to stern, lay over considerably on her starboard side. The passengers were quiet
and collected from first to last; many of us were accustomed to the sensation, having
been on board the Pera, which, on the previous Saturday, had been bumping for three
hours and a half on the Alexandria bar. Every one did his utmost to help the crew, by
hauling at ropes, throwing cargo overboard, and working at the capstan; anchors
having been laid out astern, to drag the ship from an awkward position into what
seemed to us one of still greater danger. We were nearly all convinced that the leaks,
after a few hours’ bumping, would have sunk the ship had the captain’s first attempt to
get her off been successful; but the general belief of the passengers was that the Great
Eastern herself would scarcely have sufficed to drag the Carnatic from her place on the
reef. Our meals went on as usual, and we even amused ourselves with angling
unsuccessfully for the fish, of dazzling colours, that swarmed beneath us. Towards midday
on Monday, some of those on board appeared their anxiety to hear from the
captain what measures he proposed to adopt. Most of us, however, felt it would be
better to remain passive and await his instructions. At half-past five in the evening
Captain Jones came aft, and spoke to us for the first time, thanking us for our
behaviour, and asking us to nominate a committee, to whom he would explain his
views, and the condition of the vessel. Three of us, having been chosen, went forward
immediately, but, as the sun had set, and the boats, though alongside, were utterly
unfurnished with stores and provisions, we agreed with the captain that, under the
circumstances, the weather being calm, it would be advisable to remain on board for
the night, and go ashore in the early morning. “I for one went below at eleven o’clock,
undressed completely, and slept till one in the morning. At that hour a man awoke me, and
told me that, as the water had gained on us so far as to extinguish the fires and thus stop the
engines pumping, everyone on board was to proceed at once to the forecastle. There,
consequently, we assembled; and, as the wind gradually freshened with the coming day, it
proved to be a rather exposed situation. The passengers, however, employed themselves in
helping the crew to get cut another anchor forward and to set foresail, foretopsail, and
forestaysail, to prevent the ship slipping backwards into deep water. At last, too, the
victualling of the boats was commenced.
“In the mean time, the angle at which the vessel lay was slowly but steadily increasing,
and the rising tide was washing the quarter-deck nearly up to the companion. Some of
us, after waiting hours for orders to take to the boats, went below out of curiosity, and
were witnesses of a very remarkable sight. The saloon was full of water, which poured
in with amazing violence through the shattered skylights, every advancing wave
threatening to carry away the whole after part of the ship. Tables, chairs, and benches
were careering about, washed hither and thither by the swirling water. On returning to
the fore part of the ship, a climb of some difficulty, we found that the only women on
board (two passengers and the stewardess), with a little girl about three years old, had
just been placed in the life-boat and some of the passengers were on the point of
following. It was ten minutes before eleven in the forenoon. At this instant the vessel
suddenly fell back, a frightful crash told us that she had parted amid-ships, and we
were all plunged with terrific force into a whirlpool. The ship had been, as I mentioned
above, lying over on her starboard side, but after the shock she fell completely over to
the port side; so that luggage, cargo, mail-bags, and men, with one eighteen-pounder
gun in their midst, slid together at lightning speed down the deck until sucked under by
the gigantic wave which had already swallowed up half of the ship. Bruised, bleeding,
half stunned, and battered by the luggage, we were carried under till all seemed dark.
On coming to the surface the sight that presented itself was one which I shall never
forget, but which I find it absolutely impossible to describe. Heads, arms, and legs,
bales of merchandise, boxes, sheep, fowls, and things of all sorts were being tossed
backwards and forwards, up and down, by the rushing water. Drowning men were
clutching at each other in their frantic struggles to reach a resting-place, which too
many found only at the bottom of the sea. I myself was thus dragged under three
times, but, being a good swimmer, I finally got hold of the foretop, which was half
above water, and crawled up into the crosstrees, to take breath. In a short time,
mutually assisting each other, all the men that could be seen in the water were hauled
up. Being now in a safe position, we could look about us; but the foretopsail prevented
our seeing the boats, or the men who had escaped direct to the reef, from the

starboard side of the ship, as she went under, and for about two hours we knew not the
state of affairs on the other side. At length a boat came off to us; we fastened those
who could not swim and those half stunned by a rope about their waists, and let them
down. We were all taken off in three or four trips. Many of the survivors, who had
struck out for the surf, and had somehow or other got through it, were standing on the
coral up to their waists in smooth water. Happily, no sharks showed themselves,
though in these parts they abound, and I am told a large one had been seen the day
before. The bodies of Captain Pope, of the purser, and, I believe, of Mr. Warren, were
dragged from the surf and laid on a bale of cotton. In each case endeavours were
made to restore life, but without avail.
“We were busily engaged during the next few hours in dragging the boats across the
reef to the deep channel, which was about three miles broad, dividing us from
Shadooan; then pulling across to the island, landing the stores there, and getting the
boats over the cruel coral fringe to the sandy beach, where they lay high and dry. It
was about eight in the evening when, after this fatiguing task, the wet and weary
remnant of our company found themselves at last fairly ashore. The island is totally
devoid of fresh water, and we had brought but little with us. Many of the casks were
empty, having been placed unbunged in the boats, and some had been idiotically
emptied by the African stokers to make unnecessary rafts for coming ashore. We
knew that the next passing ship would be either the Sumatra or the Neaera, which
might be expected at any moment. There seemed at first to be no possible means of
making a signal in the dark. It was therefore decided that the chief officer, two of the
passengers, and three Chinamen of the crew should launch a boat, make for the usual
channel, and lie off all night, in hopes of stopping a ship. If no ship came in the night,
the boat would try to beat up or pull up eighteen or twenty miles against current and
wind to the Ushruffi lighthouse and obtain all the fresh water that could be spared. One
rocket only could be found, and this, with half the only dry box of matches was placed
in the boat. But, most providentially, several hundred huge bales of Manchester calicos
and cotton cloths had floated, the day before the final break up, on to the island, having
been thrown overboard, when we first struck the reef. These bales, very tightly
pressed, had remained dry inside, and were of inestimable value in a variety of ways.
From their contents we made ourselves turbans, most of us having lost our hats, as
well as coats and bedding to lie on the sand. But the grandest notion of all was to
collect an immense pile and set it alight. It was found to blaze gloriously, and one of
our greatest anxieties was at once dispelled. “Before this discovery, however, we had
commenced to launch the cutter, when a Chinaman ran down the bank, shouting that the
lights of a steamer were visible. We strained every nerve to haul the boat out over the coral,
and got away about nine o’clock at night. There was a doubt whether we should sail fast
enough to reach the ship before she got by on her way to Suez; but, after putting a quarter of
a mile between ourselves and the land, we looked back and saw the bonfire flaring most
conspicuously. By the position of the steamer’s lights, it was evident that her attention
was attracted, and at the critical moment we succeeded in firing our rocket. This
settled the matter; the ship hove to, and we were soon alongside and on deck of the
Peninsular and Oriental Company’s steamer Sumatra, from Bombay, with Lord Napier
and other passengers on board. Boats were at once lowered, and, with the one in
which we had arrived, went back for the Carnatic’s company. The wind had, however,
risen, and all were not on board the Sumatra till ten o’clock on Wednesday morning,
when we started on our return voyage to Suez. I cannot overrate the kindness and
attention shown to us by all on board the Sumatra, and, in truth, we sorely needed
help. Of all the baggage in the Carnatic, one small dressing-bag alone had been
saved. We displayed our whole property on our persons, and, as we were all nearly
alike, I may state, for example, that my costume consisted of a pair of tattered trousers,
a shirt, and fifteen yards of Manchester calico gracefully wreathed round my temples.
“The loss of life was fifteen Europeans and as many natives; of the former were five
first-class passengers-viz., Captain Pope, R.A; Mr. Cuppage, 35th Regiment; Mr.
Warren, Dr. Thomson, and Mr. Pidding, the ship’s purser, Mr. Gardner, and his clerk,
Mr. Mackintosh, and the doctor, Mr. Ransford, with two engineers, a steward, and
others. A more complete wreck than that of the ill-fated Carnatic has rarely taken

USAJOBS - Employer View Page 1 of 6

Janelle Lee Harrison

901 E Washington Street
APT 477
Colton, CA 92324
Mobile: 760-662-3618

Country of citizenship: United States of America

Veterans' Preference: No
Highest Grade: GS-0102-05, 07/2010-01/2011
Contact Current Employer: Contact me first


WORK EXPERIENCE Death Valley National Park 7/2010 - Present

Death Valley, CA US
Grade Level: GS-05
Salary: 31,315 USD Per Year
Hours per week: 40

Archaeological/GIS Technician
Major Duties:
Serves on survey crews locating and verifying archeological sites. Uses basic scientific
and systematic procedures to identify, evaluate, and classify cultural resource areas.
Incumbent assists in the preparation of maps, inventories, reports, and records
relative to cultural resource sites. Performs archeological examinations of roads,
springs, and other areas where archeological material may be subject to destruction
or damage.

I have completed several major mapping projects in ArcGIS 9.3; built a historic
structures file geodatabase with features classes; created multiple ArcMap map
templates; and attended ESRI's "How to Improve Productivity with ArcGIS 10"

California State Parks Dept. of Parks & Rec 6/2008 - 3/2010

San Diego, CA US
Salary: 13.78 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 45

Archaeological Project Leader

Under direction, persons in this class plan, direct, and coordinate the work on a major
archeological project or on a number of smaller projects in an area. Tasks: For an
assigned project or group of projects determines the scope and extent of work to be
done within the limitations of funds and time allocated for such work; recommends
staffing, work procedures, equipment, and schedule for projects; assists in the
selection of project personnel; supervises the on-site work through Archeological
Specialists; establishes procedures and controls to be used on projects; makes on-site
decisions regarding problems and departures from procedures; supervises the
recording and reporting of project work and its publication as directed; works with
landowners, officials of other departments, supervisors of other sections within
his/her own department, and the public to establish effective relationships and to
maintain liaison necessary for the successful completion of assigned projects; directs
such movement, storage, cataloging, and display of specimens as may be specified by

Scientific Resource Surveys Inc. 4/2008 - 6/2008

Orange, CA US
Salary: 14.00 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 40 1/18/2011
USAJOBS - Employer View Page 2 of 6

Archaeological Lab Technician

Duties included cleaning and processing of prehistoric artifacts recovered form a
Southern California coast site. Keeping lab area clean, answering the telephone and
scheduling trash pick-up.

CSUSB Recreational Sports Center 6/2006 - 9/2006

San Bernardino, CA US
Salary: 11.50 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 45

Life Guard & Water Safety Instructor

Duties included instructing four groups of 3 to 8 children ages 3 to 14 yrs old all levels
of swimming techniques and safety. Sessions ran 50 min. each four days a week—
when not instructing I was required to conduct lifeguard duties to according to Red
Cross standards. (Contact Supervisor: Yes, Supervisor's Name: Rick Craig,
Supervisor's Phone: (909)537-BFIT)

Mountain High Ski Resort 12/2005 - 5/2006

Wrightwood, CA US
Salary: 7.25 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 55

Lead Ski Lift Operator

As lead lift operator I was responsible for the safety of my crew (up to 7) and the
safety of all guests loading and unloading on the ski lifts, filling in daily log sheets,
incident reports, and maintenance of ski ramps to OSHA compliance. I scheduled
breaks and lunches for my crew and worked extensively with our guests both at the
ticket gates and on the ski lifts. Seasons: 1992/93, 1994/95, 1999/00, 2003/04, &
2005/06. (Contact Supervisor: Yes, Supervisor's Name: Brent Townsley, Supervisor's
Phone: (888) 754-7878)

100 Percent Direct Marketing 6/2005 - 12/2005

London, Greater London UK
Salary: 9 GBP Per Hour
Hours per week: 36

Administrative Assistant
As administrative assistant in this small London office I assisted our two marketers by
computer entry & data sorting for marketing lists using MS Access, organized files,
typed response emails to clients, answered phones, created Power Point
Presentations, prepared materials for mass client mailings and other ad hoc duties.
(Contact Supervisor: Yes, Supervisor's Name: Michael Howe, Supervisor's Phone: 020
7631 3351)

Mountain High Ski Resort 12/2004 - 5/2005

Wrightwood, CA US
Salary: 7.25 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 55

Lead Ski Lift Operator

As lead lift operator I was responsible for the safety of my crew (up to 7) and the
safety of all guests loading and unloading on the ski lifts, filling in daily log sheets,
incident reports, and maintenance of ski ramps

Nordstroms 9/2004 - 12/2004

Santa Barbara, CA US
Salary: 8.50 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 40

As a hostess I worked the cash register for the cafe; took food orders; served food to
customers; closed cafe and closed out registers. I provided excellent customer

Mountain High Ski Resort 11/2003 - 5/2004

Wrightwood, CA US
Salary: 7.25 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 55

Lead Ski Lift Operator

As lead lift operator I was responsible for the safety of my crew (up to 7) and the
safety of all guests loading and unloading on the ski lifts, filling in daily log sheets,
incident reports, and maintenance of ski ramps to OSHA compliance. I scheduled
breaks and lunches for my crew and worked extensively with our guests both at the
ticket gates and on the ski lifts. Seasons: 1992/93, 1994/95, 1999/00, 2003/04 1/18/2011
USAJOBS - Employer View Page 3 of 6

Adair Office Furniture 5/2000 - 9/2003

San Bernardino, CA US
Salary: 10.00 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 45

Sales Executive
Duties included custom ordering office furniture for clients, helping them with size,
color & space planning, order entry using standard & custom model codes, order
verification with vendors, writing purchase requisitions, answering phones, filing, and
managing the showroom on weekends (management located in a corporate office)
(Contact Supervisor: Yes, Supervisor's Name: Kieth Dobb, Supervisor's Phone: 909-

Mountain High Ski Resort 11/1999 - 4/2000

Wrightwood, CA US
Salary: 6.75 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 55

Lead Ski Lift Operator

As lead lift operator I was responsible for the safety of my crew (up to 7) and the
safety of all guests loading and unloading on the ski lifts, filling in daily log sheets,
incident reports, and maintenance of ski ramps. (Contact Supervisor: Yes,
Supervisor's Name: Brent Townsley, Supervisor's Phone: 760-316-7859)

Robinsons May 5/1999 - 9/1999

Santa Barbara, CA US
Salary: 9.50 USD Per Hour
Hours per week: 40

Sales Associate
As a sales associate I assisted customers in the clothing department with questions
regarding merchandise and with sales; operation of a cash register; closing out of
cash register and keeping sales area neat and tidy.

EDUCATION San Diego Mesa College

San Diego, CA US
Certification - 7/2011
11 Semester Hours
Major: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
GPA: 3.6 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
GISG 270- Work Experience (2 units)

GISG 110: Introduction to Mapping & GIS. This course covers the origins and
fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS uses spatial information
and software to map, analyze, and model real world problems (3 units).

GISG 111: Geographic Information Systems and Cartography (3 units): Description:

This course is designed for students who possess a basic background in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS). Course focuses on cartographic principles of map design,
production, and evaluation through the application of hands-on activities using ArcGIS
software. Topics covered include data acquisition methods used in map production
(Global Positioning Systems/GPS, scanning, and georeferencing of data); spatial
analysis techniques (using geoprocessing); & GIS project planning techniques.
Cartographic tools and enhancements such as map layout, symbology, & labeling are
emphasized. Students will apply project management skills to a class project. In
progress, finish May 2010

ANTH 107: Introduction to Archaeology (3 units): Description: Emphasis is placed on

the techniques of archaeological data collection and analysis, cultural innovations,
reconstruction and interpretation of the past and Cultural Resource Management
(CRM) work.

ANTH: 205 Introduction to Medical Anthropology (3 units): This course presents the
cultural forces, among other social motivations, that are powerful influences on health
and wellness-related behavior.

University of Bristol
Bristol, Avon UK
Master's Degree - 1/2008
180 UK units
Major: Maritime Archaeology & History
Minor: Anthropology
GPA: 3.0 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
I have completed a Master's of Art's in Maritime Archaeology & History- courses 1/18/2011
USAJOBS - Employer View Page 4 of 6

· Maritime Ethnography
· Course in California Maritime History
· Archaeological Site Search & Survey Methods
· Two & Three Dimensional Surveying Techniques
· Underwater Archaeological Site Excavation Techniques
· Recording During Excavation Practices & Theory
· NAS courses I & II certificates
· Use of ArchView software- ArcGIS, ArcPad 7
· Cultural Heritage & Cultural Resource Management
· Research, Analysis & Use of SHPO, Section 106, CEQA & NAGPRA
· Research & Analysis of UNESCO & ICMOS

Cal State San Bernardino

San Bernardino, CA US
Master's Degree - 6/2006
36 Quarter Hours
Major: Public Administration/Social Sciences
Minor: History
GPA: 3.7 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
I have completed graduate level courses in Social Sciences, History, Economics, Public
Administration & Geography with emphasis in GIS and remote sensing.

Santa Barbara City College

Santa Barbara, CA US
Vocational - 6/2005
24 Semester Hours
Major: Marine Diving Technologies
Minor: Ocean Sciences
GPA: 4.0 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
· Fundamentals & Practices of Diving
· Commercial Diving Equipment
· Ocean Structures
· Advanced ROV Data Acquisition
· Undersea Vehicle Operations
· Marine First Aid & CPR

California State University

San Bernardino, CA US
Bachelor's Degree - 6/2003
over 200 Semester Hours
Major: Business Admin concentration Finance
Minor: Economics
GPA: 3.0 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
Course work in International Finance, Business Law, Financial Markets/Institutions,
Operations Management and Marketing, & Economics

Victor Valley College

Victorville, CA US
Associate Degree - 5/1996
78 Semester Hours
Major: Business Administration
Minor: Finance
GPA: 3.0 out of 4.0
Relevant Coursework, Licensures and Certifications:
Oceanography, Macro & Micro Economics, Accounting I & II, & Critical Thinking
(English Lit).

JOB RELATED Recent Archaeological Field Experience:

TRAINING •Servered as a crew chief and crew member on multiple archaeological site
monitoring surveys in Death Valley, CA. Recorded site datums and boundaries using a
Trimble GeoXH or a Garmin handheld GPS. Entered site information into the
Archaeological Systems Management Information System (ASMIS); Update California
DPR Site Records and completed final project technical reports for SHPO. Lead a post-
fire survey and completed a XXX Technical Report and letter sumerizing finds to

•L.A. State Historic Park Southern Pacific Railyard Excavation: Working with a crew of
2-6 archaeologist excavating and recording the foundations of a historical
site/structure. May 2009-June 2009.

•West Halton Archaeological Field school: Volunteer: training in archaeological 1/18/2011
USAJOBS - Employer View Page 5 of 6

excavation methods and finds processing. April 2009.

•Leo Carrillo State Park ADA Trail: CRM Phase I. Conducted surface survey & testing
along proposed trail site. Dry screened STP levels and collected any material culture.
Recorded findings and level conditions on standard DPR STP/Auger form. California

•Antelope Valley Indian Museum Stabilization Project: Listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. As Lead Cultural Specialist for this project I was responsible for
monitoring all ground disturbance and all work on the historic fabric of the Museum. I
documented all work conducted with photographs sketches and monitoring logs. I
worked closely with the State Historian II to preserve the historic fabric during this
project and also with the State biologist to preserve the native vegetation. During
ground disturbance I monitored for any cultural materials that could be of prehistoric
or historic era; collected any of these objects, processed/cleaned, cataloged and
asigned accession number to collection.

•Crystal Cove State Park El Moro Campground Conversion: Lead archaeological

monitor on conversion project for a public campground/public use area. Project work
was conducted in known Native American prehistoric habitation site. Responsible for
collection of any artifacts, recording artifacts, features and other data with a Trimble
GeoXH handheld Global Positioning Unit and ArcPad 7; use of ArcGIS to create site
location map; photography and identifying artifacts and features; taking daily
monitoring notes and reporting concerns to DPR project manager. California, 2008

• Border Field Data Reconnaissance Project: Emergency reconnaissance Survey and

cultural material collection. Data recordation with Trimble GeoXT & XH hand held
global positioning unit and ArcPad 7; Completion of ASCAR for site; completed
updated site record using DPR 523 form; Creation of map from data recovered using
ArcGIS. California 2008.

·Dor Project, Survey, recordation and evcavation of a 7th and an 8th century A.D.
Arab boat wrecks using traditional underwater archaeological methods to measure &
record boats hull to create a 3-D model using WEB software. I was also trained in
underwater digtal photography and videography for site recording. Principal
Investigator Yaacov Kahanov, The Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies
University of Haifa. Israel, 2007

·Carnatic Project (Dissertation), Assessment survey- measuring, archival research and

video recordation of an 1860’s steam-powered single screw shipwreck located in the
Red Sea. Project coordinator myself (Janelle Harrison) Egypt, 2007.

·Sursay (Sursiegh) Project, Survey, recordation and site investigation of a late 18th,
early 19th century wooden vessels. Principal Investigator Peter Pritchard NAS
Scotland/HSE contractor. Scotland, 2007

·River Hooe Hulk Recording, Survey and recordation of two 19th century boats
abandoned on the foreshore/intertidal Zone of Hooe River. Principal Investigator
Martin Read, University of Plymouth/conservator. England, 2007.

·Cattewatter Project, Assisted in Geophysical survey of the Catterwater shipwreck

using sidescan sonar & magnetometer. This is the first wreck projected under the
Protection of Wreck Act 1973 (UK). Principal investigator and licensee Martin Read.
England. 2007

·Mount’s Bay Project, Assisted in Geophysical survey of Mount’s Bay, Penzance, using
sidescan sonar and a Magnetometer to find possible targets for archaeological
investigation. Principal Investigator Kevin Cambridge, Cornwall and Isles of Silly
Maritime Archaeological Society. England. 2007

AFFILIATIONS Society for Historical Member

Insitute of Field Member
Institute for Nautical Member
Society for California Member
Register of Professional RPA ID#16409
Nautical Archaeological Archaeological diver- NAS certificate level

REFERENCES Yaacov Kahanov The Leon Recanati Institute Director

for Maritime Studies
Phone Number: 972-4-8240600
Email Address: 1/18/2011
USAJOBS - Employer View Page 6 of 6

Reference Type: Professional

Don Barthelmess Santa Barbara City College Professor

Phone Number: 805-965-0581 ext.2427
Email Address:
Reference Type: Professional

Ms. Kimberly Monk University of Bristol Teaching Fellow

Phone Number: +44 (0) 117 954 6060
Email Address:
Reference Type: Professional

Rick Craig Cal State University San Director, Recreational Sports

Phone Number: 909-537-7142
Email Address:
Reference Type: Professional

ADDITIONAL *35-40 wpm Keyboarding/typing by touch

*10-key by touch
INFORMATION *Intermediate skills in Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point, Access
*Windows 7
*Adobe Photoshop & Pdf maker software
*PhotoModeler software
*ArcGIS 9.3 & 10; ArcPad 7 & 8; Pathfinder
*Advanced skills withGPS hand held unit experience- Trimble GeoXT and GeoXH &
GeoXM; Delorme Earthmate PN-60 with Spot and Garmin's.
*Remote Sensing Equipment (Side Scan Sonar & Magnetometer)
*Aerial Photography Interpretation
*EDM (Electronic Distance Measuring Device), Total Station
*ROV operation
* NPS NAGPRA Training, Oct. 10 2008
* Department of Interior "Crucial Conversations" Training Jan. 11-13 2011
* ESRI's "How to Be More Productive with ArcGIS 10" Seminar Oct. 12 2010. 1/18/2011