HM Ship Roebuck (1690–1701): Global Maritime Heritage?

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2004) 33.1: 54–66doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2004.005.x

© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing LtdM. McCARTHY: HM SHIP ROEBUCK (1690–1701)Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Cliff Street, Fremantle, WA 6160, AustraliaHM Ship Roebuck (1690–1701): Global Maritime Heritage?

Michael McCarthyDepartment of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Cliff Street, Fremantle, WA 6160, Australia

William Dampier, his literature, and the associated archaeological remains, notably HM ship Roebuck, are of undoubted globalsignificance. While there are acknowledged legal rights to the remains in respect of the Crown, and of Ascension Island whereRoebuck was lost, there also exists a number of nations possessing an interest in this famous ‘pirate and hydrographer’ andhis ship. Australia is one of those nations and in March 2001 a team under the auspices of the Western Australian MaritimeMuseum conducted research, search and survey aimed at finding out more about William Dampier and his lost ship. This isa precis of their results.

© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society

Key words: William Dampier, Roebuck, non-disturbance search and survey, Ascension Island.

S ometimes nations have an abiding interestin maritime archaeological materials thatare owned and managed by others. One

example is the situation where vessels owned andoperated by one country have had a significantimpact in conducting explorations on anothernation’s shores, only to be lost, not in their ownhome waters, or in the waters of the newly-discovered country, but in places en route. Herethe parent nation, the people occupying theshores on which the vessel was lost and finally thepeoples of the explored nation or region all cometo have an interest in the site.

Instances of this occur in the case of WilliamDampier and his late 17th century explorationson HM ship Roebuck (1701), and with theFrench exploration corvette L’Uranie (1820),transport of lovers Rose and Louis de Freycineton their world circumnavigation in the early 19thcentury. Lost at Ascension Island and in theFalkland Islands respectively, both vessels andtheir principals are of broad-based internationalarchaeological, historical and even social interest.In this paper the Roebuck case will be examined,with an account of the Uranie in a subsequentissue. In both instances details of a non-disturbance search and survey regime will beprovided in the context of a search for theirremains by an Australian team operating at vastdistances from their base, with sparse logisticalresources and limited in-water capacity.

William Dampier ‘Pirate and Hydrographer’: a figure of international importance

The Australian desire to locate the remains of hisvessels, notably HM ship Roebuck, and therebyadd to the existing mountain of information onWilliam Dampier, is rooted in his landing on thenorth-west coast of New Holland in the privateerCygnet in January 1688. Five years earlierDampier had left work on a Virginia plantationto join the privateer Revenge under Captain JohnCook. Following their piratical seizure of aneutral Danish slave ship at Sierra Leone and itsrenaming Batchelor’s Delight, Dampier sailed inher for a while, remaining after Cook’s death toserve under a Captain Davis. In 1685, seekingnew experiences, Dampier transferred to theCygnet under Captain Swan. They travelled farand wide, but after a while conditions on boarddeteriorated to the extent that, in being blamedwith the Captain for the state of starvation thatensued, both were lucky to escape being eaten.Swan was later marooned by the increasinglydisaffected crew and being short on provisionsthe privateers deviated to New Holland, under thecommand of John Read. They stayed for twomonths camping ashore, obtaining water with thehelp of Aboriginal people and careening the ship.

Dampier kept a remarkable record of theseevents, providing detailed accounts of the seas

M. MCARTHY: HM SHIP ROEBUCK (1690–1701)

© 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society 55

sailed and of the many lands, peoples, flora andfauna encountered. Wearying of his privateeringexistence, and no doubt concerned at his near-demise, Dampier became keen to leave thecompany of what he described as a ‘mad, ficklecrew’ whose drunkenness he ‘ever abhorred’, andwas threatened with being marooned on NewHolland as a result (Dampier, in Beken, 1998).After travelling further west towards India heescaped in a small boat he called the NicobarCanoe, saving only his journal and some maps.While at sea heading back towards the EastIndies he and his seven companions were struckby a violent storm. Against all the odds theylanded at Sumatra, completing a most re-markable small boat voyage.

This caused Dampier to reassess his waywardlife. On his way home he purchased ‘Jeoly’, aheavily-tattooed native prince who soon becamefamous, a travelling sideshow serving to keepDampier in the public eye for a few years until1697 when a book based on his journals waspublished. Entitled A New Voyage Round theWorld, it was an overnight sensation, wonderfullywritten with some remarkable insights. Throughit Dampier emerges as a complex and gifted man,well worthy of consideration as one of England’s‘greats’ despite his once joining with privateersand pirates in the pursuit of the knowledge andexperience he craved. Thomas Murray’s portraitin the National Portrait Gallery, London (Fig. 1),bears the title William Dampier, Pirate andHydrographer. One could not choose a better, ormore compelling, title for such an enigmaticperson.

Dampier’s New Voyage proved such a literaryand maritime sensation that it went throughmany editions and was translated into Frenchand Dutch in 1698 and German in 1702. Theseaccounts were a source of great and lastingfascination. Indeed, some elements of hisworks became the inspiration for romanticisedand mythological accounts of the region, withSwift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Defoe’s Robinson Crusoeand Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner all probablyinfluenced by Dampier (Marchant, 1988). In 1699he published a supplement, including a sectionentitled ‘a discourse of trade-winds, breezes,storms, seasons of the year, tides and currentsof the torrid zone throughout the world’,detailing oceanographic and other phenomenaencountered on his voyage. This proved of long-lasting benefit to mariners and his works werecarried on exploration voyages for centuries after.

Dampier’s fame was such that he was able toinfluence the Admiralty to support his leading avoyage designed to approach the then-unchartedeastern coast of New Holland from the PacificOcean and Cape Horn. After making landfallaround 35–40o S (about midway between present-day Sydney and Melbourne), Dampier was tosurvey this coast and the eastern coast of NewGuinea. Some thought he might also, en route,solve the mystery of a coastline Dampier’s formercommander Captain Davis had noted in 27o Slatitude 500 leagues east of Chile. To some this‘Davis Land’ was possibly the mythical ‘TerraAustralis’.

After finding the first vessel assigned to himtotally unsuitable, Dampier was provided withHis Majesty’s ship Roebuck, armed, 3-masted, 96ft (29 m) long on the deck with a beam of 25 ft(7.6 m) and a crew of 50 men, including a navalofficer. One of 12 purpose-built fire-ships orderedon December 1689 from different builders,

Figure 1. A contemporary portrait by Thomas Murrayentitled ‘William Dampier. Pirate and Hydrographer’(reproduced by kind permission of the National PortraitGallery, London).

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 33.1

56 © 2004 The Nautical Archaeology Society

Roebuck was launched on 17 April 1690, aninordinately short time. She was present at thebattle of Beachy Head in the following June andin 1695 was upgraded to a 26-gun 5th-rate(Sexton, 2002).

The appointment of Dampier, a civilian andformer privateer—and in some eyes (as a resultof the capture of Batchelor’s Delight while he wason board) a pirate—to command a naval vessel,no matter how humble, was remarkable. But hisnew-found fame and influence was enough totranscend such a hurdle, as the following quotefrom the diarist John Evelyn on 16 August 1698attests:

I dined with Mr Pepys, where was Captain Damp-ier, who had been a famous buccaneer, had broughthither the painted prince Job [Jeoly], and printed arelation of his very strange adventure … He wasnow going abroad again by the King’s encourage-ment, who furnished a ship of 290 tons. He seemeda more modest man than one would imagine byrelation of the crew he had associated with (George,1999: 135–6).

Delays in provisioning and fitting-out sawRoebuck leave too late in the season to travel viaCape Horn and she had to settle for the muchlonger voyage via the Cape of Good Hope,thereby forcing Dampier to approach hisobjective (the east coast of New Holland) fromthe west. En route, he made landfall on themid-west coast of New Holland at the placehe subsequently named ‘Sharks Bay’. He alsoproduced a chart, and there and at two otherlocations on the coast he collected and describedmany plants, shells and other specimens, allowingthe reader to recognise many species of plant,birds, fishes, marine mammals, reptiles, shells andone insect. This caused one noted botanist towrite that in providing details of landscape, soils,vegetation, tides, the sea floor, winds and weatherthrough the medium of his journal andcollections Dampier ‘provided the first broadaccount of the Australian environment’ (George,1999: 2).

After calling in to Timor, Dampier continuedon towards the east coast of New Holland andwhen in the vicinity of the north-west end ofNew Guinea (Irian Jaya) not far from what isnow known as Selat Dampier his crew recovereda variety of small shells, and one ‘great one’weighing 78 lb (35 kg) – apparently a giant clam.Later his men also brought on board anothergiant clam shell of 258 lb (117 kg) (Voyage toNew Holland, in Callander, 1768, vol. 3: 113-15).

Beset with leaks, Roebuck then proceededeastwards and Dampier discovered and namedNova Britannia (New Britain) before passingdown through the strait that was subsequentlynamed after him. Concerned at the state of hisship, and the inability of the apparently ineptcarpenter’s mate to stem the flow, at the end ofMarch 1700 and just short of his goal, Dampierabandoned his plan to sail south to explore theeastern coast of New Holland, and elected tohead for the nearest port, Batavia, on west Java.After staying there while Roebuck was repairedfor the long voyage home, Dampier and his mencarried on, calling at the Cape of Good Hope(Fig. 2).

Having found himself puzzled at the magneticvariation encountered on the outward journeyhe eventually produced a table of magneticvariations encountered on his two legs to theCape, thereby helping others, such as MatthewFlinders RN, towards their subsequent remediesfor the problem (Dampier, 1703). ThenceRoebuck progressed past St Helena and up toAscension Island, arriving on 21 February 1701.Dampier’s account of the ensuing events—anamalgam of his published and unpublishedaccounts—reads thus:

we sprung a Leake … which oblig’d us to keep ourChain pump constantly going … Being come toanchor … the Boatswain came to me, told me …that the Plank was quite rotten, and that it was nowimpossible to save the Ship … next morning, beingthe 23rd, we weigh’d anchor and warped in nearerthe shoare, but to little purpose till in the afternoon… with the help of a Sea-breeze, I ran into 7 fathom… and anchored. Then carried a small Anchorashore, and warp’d in … within a Cable’s lengthof the Shoare … till I came into 3 Fathom and ahalf. Where having fastnd her, I made a raft …and before Eight at night most of them weregott ashoare (9 September, 1701; Voyage to NewHolland, in Williamson, 1939: 247–9).

Dampier salvaged his journals and some of hisAustralian plant specimens, and took them allwith him when he and his crew were rescued byfour English ships after nearly two monthsashore. Well aware of their import, Dampierhanded his specimens to Thomas Woodwardof the Royal Society to be studied by Britain’sleading botanists. The specimens are now pre-served at the Fielding-Druce Herbarium at theDepartment of Plant Sciences at the Universityof Oxford. They are the earliest collection fromAustralian shores, allowing Dampier to become



further recognised by this collection and his vividdescriptions as ‘Australia’s first natural historian’.This appellation is most deserved, especiallywhen it is considered that Dampier was well overhalf a century before the celebrated Joseph Bankswho accompanied James Cook to Australia’s eastcoast and nearly a century before the Frenchbotanists and natural scientists who followed(Marchant, 1998; George, 1999).

Thus Australians, especially WesternAustralians, have developed an abiding interest inWilliam Dampier and in the lead-up to the 1999tercentenary of Dampier’s visit to Shark Bay itwas planned to use the search for Roebuck as afocus for further research into his contribution toAustralian maritime heritage. From the outset itwas accepted that Roebuck was a Ship of State asdefined in the international conventions and thatthe hull and its contents belonged to Britain(Roach, 1996). It was also accepted that theAscension Island Administration and thecommunity there were managing wrecks there intheir own right and as agents for Britain. Thus apurely non-disturbance search and survey regimein concert with Island interests and Governmentinstrumentalities was proposed.

On that basis support for a program underthe auspices of the Department of Maritime

Archaeology at the Western Australian MaritimeMuseum was readily obtained from the BritishAdmiralty and the Ascension Islands Adminis-tration and its Heritage Committee. The Museumfound itself unable to provide any financialresources to the project, however, and was ableto release only two staff (McCarthy and Kimpton)to lead the team. External sponsors were even-tually found and with some of their grants tied toa place on the team, a somewhat odd mix for anymaritime archaeological expedition departed forthe field. An abalone fisherman, and a doctor anda popular author (both in their late 60s) joined asdivers, and as non-diving field assistants a sciencewriter from a local newspaper and a councillorrepresenting Shire of Shark Bay interests formedthe remainder of the field team. Though theservices of a British contract researcher wereobtained, finances were extremely tight and allother research support was from volunteers. Inorder to save freight costs, diving and recordinggear was kept to an absolute minimum, addingfurther to the paucity of resources.

Previous attempts to locate RoebuckDampier did not state where the events leading tothe loss of his ship took place, and a long-standing

Figure 2. The Roebuck voyage (from Dampier, 1703, A Voyage to New Holland … in the year 1699).



island tradition had it that his vessel lay in SouthWest Bay (Packer, 1968; MacFall, 2000). Thisgenerally-held belief was also reflected in theexhibitions at the Island’s museum. Part of thereasoning behind the South West Bay hypothesisappears to be the naming of a freshwater springon the north-west side of Green Mountain‘Dampier’s Drip’. Because Dampier recorded hehad to travel over a high mountain to access aspring, this led many to conclude that the wrecklay in South West Bay, the only suitable landingplace from which one would have had to crossthe mountain to the spring. The belief was alsopartly the result of the location of two ancientanchors in the Bay (Packer, 1968).

On the other hand, a reading of Dampier’sown accounts indicates that the name given tothe spring on the north-west face of GreenMountain was in error and that his source ofwater was on the southern side of the mountain.It also became evident that in plotting thepositions Dampier gives for his vessel as he cameto anchor in a sinking state off Ascension Island,only Clarence Bay on the north-west side fits thebearings given: ‘at nine aclock in the morninganchored in the N.W. Bay in ten fathom and halfwater, sandy ground about half a mile from theshoare, the S. point of the bay bore S.S.W. dist.one mile and a half and the northernmost point,N.E.1/2 N.dist. two mile’ (Dampier, 1701).

Combining the historical record with localknowledge, one prominent Island residentconcluded that the wreck lay in Clarence Bayat the ‘northern end of Long Beach, just tothe south-west of Bate’s Point’ (MacFall, 2000).His analysis also formed the basis of artworkfor an issue of ‘First Day Cover’ stampscommemorating the Tri-Centennial of the arrivalof Dampier in February of 2001. This depictionof the loss of Roebuck was later shown to beremarkably accurate.

Robert Marx (1983) reported that in 1973 hehad found the site; had dived with servicepersonnel from the Island, had raised materialsincluding ‘brass fittings’ and donated them tothe museum. An analysis of his report andsubsequent events on the island, however, showsthat he was in error and that he had actuallylocated the wreck of HMS Maeander (1870) inComfortless Cove, just north of Clarence Bay(see McCarthy, 2002: 101–2).

In 1979 Commander John Bingeman RNconducted an extensive search. His team initiallysearched English Bay, to the north, and South

West Bay, utilising a towed diver system from aninflatable boat. Local divers also assisted. Beingunsuccessful, and reassessing Dampier’s log,Bingeman shifted his focus to Clarence Bay(Fig. 3). However, despite many hours of towedsearches the team failed to find any trace ofRoebuck. Bingeman concluded that the wreck layburied at Long Beach, a large sandy expanse atthe foot of Georgetown, the administrative centreof the island. He also conducted an extensivearchival study and led the inspection of four 19thcentury wrecks, providing the groundwork for the1985 search. In that year an RAF CombinedServices team under Squadron Leader C. R.Tebbs utilised remote sensing, swim searches onscuba, and diver tow systems on snorkel, andsearched widely from Clarence Bay down pastSouth West Bay, finding and reporting on allother wrecks on the island, bar Roebuck. Tebbs(1986) concluded his report with the note that hebelieved that Roebuck lay ‘underneath the deepsands of Long Beach’ in Clarence Bay and that itwould need remote sensing equipment to find it.

Preliminaries to the March 2001 searchWith the inability of well-organised expeditions,even assisted by island divers, to locate theRoebuck site, a comprehensive literature searchfor secondary sources and extant primarydocuments was undertaken by the author, assistedby Philippe Godard, Robert Sexton and Britishcontract researcher Hannah Cunliffe. Unearthedwere the logs of the four ships that eventuallyrescued Dampier and his men, together with

Figure 3. Ascension Island (Matthew Gainsford).



evidence given at the Court Martial convenedinto the loss of Roebuck. The hitherto elusivecontract for the construction of Roebuck as afire-ship was also located (Sexton, in prep.).Further, in John Masefield’s 1906 biography ofDampier were found copies of letters from him tothe Admiralty complaining about his new shipand its unsatisfactory fitting-out. These provedespecially important in predicting what wouldserve as diagnostic features if a site were found,and what of the ship would remain under waterif it had not been salvaged in the intervening years.Iron fastenings, anchors, 12 guns, iron ballast ‘pigs’a common pump and a chain pump were expected,for example (McCarthy and Godard, 2001).

Ironically, not only did the archival searchfail satisfactorily to resolve the South West orClarence Bay issues by finding a definitivereference to the ship’s location, but it also raisedthe possibility that Roebuck had drifted backout to sea soon after it had been abandoned.Evidence in support of this theory came fromDampier himself, for he makes no mention of thewreck after landing. Adding to this perception,the preface to his Voyage to New Holland, reads‘my Ship, having sprung a Leak which could notbe stopped, foundred at Sea’ (Williamson, 1939:xxii). In that same edition appears a plaintive,and ironically prescient, letter from Dampier tothe President of the Privy Council, which alsoconveys a sense that Roebuck sank some distanceoff the island. ‘The World is apt to judge of everything by the Success; and whoever has ill Fortunewill hardly be allowd a good Name. This, myLord, was my unhappiness in my late Expeditionin the Roe-buck, which founder’d thro’ perfectAge near the Island of Ascension’ (Williamson,1939: lxv–vi). Further, none of the four ships—the East India Ship Canterbury and HM shipsAnglesey, Hastings and Lizard—that enteredAscension Roads at the entrance to North WestBay (as Clarence Bay was called) saw the wreck,but only the men. The Captain’s log of theAnglesey reads, for example: ‘as I came in sawmany Men ashore Unexpacted w[hi]ch proved tobe Capn Dampire of ye Roebuck and men theirship having foundard in Ye Road’ (the deep-wateranchorage at the entrance to North West Bay).

The literature search also raised yet anotherpossibility—that the ship had totally broken upsoon after it was abandoned. Adding weight tothis was evidence provided by members of the crewat the Court Martial. The carpenter’s mate, JohnPenton, for example, indicated that Roebuck was

‘full up to ye hatches with water’; the Master, JohnHughes, that ‘we gott her within a Cables lengthof the shoare, and she soon struck’; and a CharlesHarbree that ‘having gott wthn a cables length ofye shore in sum short time after ye ship sunk’.

In reading these conflicting accounts a scenepresents itself where after initially anchoring offNorth West Bay in 10 1/2 fathoms and settlingfast; Roebuck got a sea-breeze and was sailed into7 fathoms where it came to a halt, presumably, asthe wind dropped and returned to its normal off-shore quarter. Then an anchor was rowed ashore,and with water lapping the hatch coamings,Roebuck was warped into 3 1/2 fathoms (6.4 m)where she ‘struck’ and was secured a cable’slength (180 m) from shore. A short time latershe ‘sank’ to the seabed and after Dampier andhis men went ashore the ship disintegrated, ordrifted back out to sea as a waterlogged hulk.

In planning for the Museum’s search it becameevident that the first task was to take a boat andfollow Dampier’s recorded movements as his shipslowly sank beneath him. This was to be effectedusing Dampier’s compass bearings and soundingsand by proceeding where and as he describedeach event in February 1701. Once a groundingsite was selected, a combination of visual andremote sensing searches (magnetometers) andminimal-disturbance water-powered sand probeswould constitute the first stage in what wasexpected to be a prolonged campaign, takinga number of seasons. If preliminary resultsindicated that the vessel was not in shallow water,or under the beach in Clarence Bay, a deep-watersearch using visual and remote sensing methods(e.g. magnetometer and side-scan sonar systems)would be conducted in later years.

The 2001 search: some inordinate good luckDetail of otherwise reasonably mundane techniquesis provided here partly to help explain not onlywhy the whereabouts of one of the world’s greatexploration vessels remained such a mystery, buthow the matter was resolved. On the morning of15 March 2001, within days of the anniversaryof Dampier’s own landing three centuries earlier,the Museum team completed a familiarisationdive. This was essential, for initially (and quiteincorrectly) the team had expected tropicalmarine life such as large shells, and substantialcoral growth over wreckage, as is common in theIndo-Pacific region. Later in the day the group



sailed on board the local dive boat AscensionFrigate to the bearings provided by Dampier tofix Roebuck’s first anchorage in 10 1/2 fathoms(19 m) of water. Interestingly it is the same placeused today by visiting ships and tankers.

There journals and the other first-handaccounts of the loss of the Roebuck were readto those on board. Conditions were similar tothose Dampier encountered; the winds offshore(predominantly south-easterly) and the seasslight on a low swell. As the journals were beingread, an apparently-rare sea-breeze came in,exactly as befell Dampier 300 years before. Withthese fortuitous events the team was able todeduce with an element of certainty Dampier’scourse in the minutes that would have elapsed ashe recognised the opportunity afforded as hisship slowly settled beneath him and ordered it begot under way. Thus Ascension Frigate was ableto motor in, first to the 7 fathom (12.8 m) depthand then in to Roebuck’s probable grounding sitein 3 1/2 fathoms (6.4 m), about one cable’s length(180 m) from shore. While anchored in whatappeared to be the most likely grounding placegiven the conditions prevailing (in 1701 and in2001) a line of rocks was seen under the boatrunning diagonally across the bay from the northtowards the beach in the south-east. Of varyingwidth, they were found to be projecting fromaround 1 to 1.5 m above a sand bottom, with gapsbetween each outcrop not much more than 5 m.

Having decided on the most likely site,attention then turned to locating evidence ofa wreck. Experience of those driven ashore instorms was drawn on to form a predictive modelfor the ensuing search. One very useful examplewas the 40-gun VOC ship Zuytdorp (1712), amuch larger vessel than Roebuck and onenormally drawing about 4 to 5 m, whicheventually came to rest in 2 to 3 m of extremelyrough water on the Western Australian coast(McCarthy, 1998). This and other examplesindicated that, if it had not been blown back outto sea, Dampier’s wreck most likely lay in muchless than the 3 1/2 fathoms sounded by him at thegrounding site. Perhaps, like the Zuytdorp, it layin the surf zone, an area the searches of 1985appear not to have reached.

Search methodThe first stages of the search were to be con-ducted from land through the waves utilisinga very simple, but quite accurate, ‘transit’ survey

method. This entailed snorkelling out to theprescribed depth and distance from the beachand back along a line marked onshore withtemporary ‘leads’ similar to those used by vesselsto navigate in and out of narrow channels.

Visibility was uncharacteristically good, giventhe heavy swells, and the beach was found to beextremely heavily eroded and very steep justinshore of high water mark. The entire northernend of Clarence Bay was littered with recently-exposed steel drums (appearing as iron hoops),jetty fittings and other unidentified moderndetritus, including various sizes and diameters of20th century pipe. The sand movement wasapparently a very recent phenomenon and it hadnot been seen in the lifetime of the island’slongest-serving resident (of 40 years) Mr JimmyYoung (pers. comm.).

The location of shipwreck materialWhile searching along the transit lines the diverssaw debris similar to that found on shore,together with landing craft or airstrip tracksfrom the Second World War, numerous concretedobjects and other debris. Significant orinteresting items requiring further inspectionwere marked from shore, again using a series ofintersecting transit markers. After just under anhour of searching and examining each ‘strike’, abronze bell was found on the 9th transit line. Itwas lying almost totally uncovered, but affixed toa cleft in rocks c.90 m from shore on a rock andsand seabed c.4 m deep inshore from Bate’s Pointat the northern end of the Bay. It had a large holein its upper surface and was full of shells andother marine matter (Fig. 4). Indications were

Figure 4. The bell as found (J. Lashmar).



that the bell had only recently been exposed—with a distinct line on its surface delineating thehigh point of the latest sand movement around it.Further, the rocks above and around it were alltotally devoid of sea life and algae, indicating thatthey had only recently emerged from the sand.

The search regime was halted while the bellwas recorded and for a while the ordered pro-gression along the transit lines was lost anda random swim of the immediate area wasconducted. A short time later a heavily-concretedgrapnel, similar in size to those found onlongboats of the period, was found fixed to arock further south (Fig. 5). Then one half of alarge clam was found exposed in a cleft in the reefon the seabed just a few metres south. It lay inthe swell in shallower water c.100 m south of thebell and c.8 m from shore (Fig. 6).

A few metres further south, again in the surfzone close to the beach and in a very turbulentlocation, two heavily-eroded, slightly tapering ironobjects, very similar to the remains of heavilyeroded cannon found at the wreck of the VOCShip Zuytdorp (1712), were seen. These were firmlywedged amongst the rocks and had had muchof their upper surface worn away, apparentlyby constant sandblasting in the surge (Fig. 7).Trunnions or (as is often the case in turbulentexposed conditions like those experienced at theZuytdorp) stubs of trunnions, were not visible,precluding any positive identification of them asa cannon. Another length had some of thecharacteristics of iron bilge pump segments—whose discrete lengths are often incorrectlyreported as cannon—but no identification wasmade in the heavy surge.

After the dive Mr Young called in, showing theteam an ornate blue and white ceramic lid (Fig. 8)and an intact c.15 litre brown earthenware pot(Fig. 9) that he had found a few weeks earlier at

the foot of a large rock in the same area. Slighterosion of a small section of the surface of theeach was consistent with its being exposed foronly a short period on a mobile seabed. The next

Figure 5. The tangled grapnel (G. Kimpton, from a videorecord).

Figure 6. The clam, showing rocks devoid of marine growth(M. McCarthy).

Figure 7. The possible cannon (M. McCarthy, from a videorecord).



day other grapnels were located and ceramicsherds were noticed lying on the seabed in thewave line at the foot of Mr Young’s rock. Thisalso exhibited a distinct line of weed c.50 cmhigher than the existing seabed, with all below itdevoid of any life, adding further evidence thatthe seabed had only recently dropped.

HH Geoffrey Fairhurst, the Ascension IslandAdministrator—representative of the British

Government and Receiver of Wreck on the island—was advised of the finds. After viewing thevideo record and giving due consideration to thefact that the clam and bell were exposed, withouta protective layer of sand or concretion, and thatthey were, in effect, being sandblasted by abrasiveparticles carried on each surge, he requested theMuseum team to raise the materials at risk inassociation with the Ascension Island Dive Club.He then notified the Admiralty of his decision toask the team to deviate from its non-disturbancebrief.

On the following day the bell was recorded,chipped clear of the rocks and placed on a sandbottom nearby where its contents were excavated,secured and recovered. A broad arrow—markof British Admiralty since the 1300s—wasvisible on the underside. The clam, which lay facedown locked into place between two rocks byshells, stones and other cemented matter, wasexcavated and recorded in a similar fashion. Thegrapnels were left in situ. The middle to southernend of the bay was searched by diver tow systemwith the only possible find the middle link of arigging chain, totally exposed on the sand in thesurf zone.

Ashore the team inspected cannon, anchors,museum objects and other material on the islandfor clues that might cast further light on the lossof Roebuck, or may even have emanated from it.Only two naval guns at the Residency remainedas possible links to early RN wrecks, showingobvious signs of having spent quite some timeunderwater. A disappointment, given thereferences to the earlier recovery of early ship’sanchors in the 1985 Combined Services Report,was the location of only two anchors on theisland, one an Admiralty pattern of the early-to-mid 19th century at the Residency and the othera modern close-stowing anchor on exhibition atthe hostel in town. Mystery surrounds thewhereabouts of those previously recovered fromIsland waters.

The finds assessedOf the naval vessels expected to have carried abell with a broad arrow, only HM ship Roebuckis known to have been lost in the vicinity ofClarence Bay. Secondly, and as expected, acomparison of archaeological and other dataindicates that the lesser importance given to aRoyal Navy vessel, the more spartan were itsdecorations and fittings.

Figure 8. The blue and white lid (M. McCarthy).

Figure 9. The brown glaze jar (M. McCarthy).



The bell of a contemporary 5th-rate Dartmouthwrecked off Mull in 1690 was 394 mm in heightand it carried the broad arrow or ‘pheon’ and theinscription DH 1678 (Adnams, 1974: 269–274;Martin, 1978). This 266-ton vessel, constructedin 1655, underwent a major overhaul in 1678.Further pertinent comparisons can be made withthe bells recovered from HM ship Stirling Castleand possibly the Northumberland, both wreckedon the Goodwin Sands in 1703. These two bellscarried the date 1701, while that of the StirlingCastle also bore the broad arrow (pers. comm.J. Bingeman, 2001). The Clarence Bay bell is300 mm high by 340 mm wide, with a broadarrow, but with no other inscriptions. Thisprobably indicates that it was a Royal Navyvessel of lesser status. Of importance are thesimilarities in the form and size of the broadarrows on each bell, for these appear to haveevolved over time (McCarthy, in prep.) (Fig. 10).

Though no other clams were seen on theMuseum’s familiarisation dive before the searchbegan, expert opinion on the provenance of theclam and the possibility that it was native toAscension Island was sought. A report from theDivision of Natural Sciences at the WesternAustralian Museum indicated that it belonged tothe genus Tridacna and possibly to the speciesTridacna squamos, and that it would have beencollected in the Indian Ocean or western PacificOcean (Slack-Smith, 2002). From accounts of theRoebuck voyage there is no doubt that clams andother shells were on board and that many werelost when the ship was wrecked. Dampier

recorded: ‘I brought away a great many of them;but lost all except a very few, and those not of thebest’ (Wilkinson, 1929: 87). Given that therewould be no incentive for others to bring clamshells to the island either in the 19th century, afterit was occupied by British forces, or in the 20thcentury when Second World War bases wereestablished, there is little doubt then that thisparticular shell is part of Dampier’s lost collection.

The ceramics were examined by a range ofexperts and all agreed that Batavia (present-dayJakarta) was most likely source—an importantobservation as Roebuck spent a considerable timethere effecting repairs for the voyage home. Thebrown-glazed jar was ‘quite common’, probablyproduced at kilns in Guandon Province, southernChina, and of a form unchanged from the firsthalf of the 17th century and possibly through the18th. The blue and white ware, however, providedmuch more information and was easier to date(Flecker, 2002). According to C. Jörg (pers. comm.21 May 2001):

The blue-and-white jar lid and the shards are prod-ucts of the Jingdezhen kilns, Jiangxi Province,China. The jar lid is very similar in form to hun-dreds … recovered from the Vung Tau Wreck ofc.1690. … While … nowhere near imperial quality,it is of fairly high export quality. … It was certainlygood quality stuff … and can be regarded, I think,as a personal belonging of someone like Dampierhimself, or one of the ship’s officers.

The location of the concreted grapnel near theshore and in such a configuration as to indicatethat its rope was once tangled and that it wasirretrievable when abandoned, was consideredhighly significant. The Captain’s log of HM ShipHastings for 5 April 1701 reads as follows:‘Satterday 5 … In y afternoon came on boardseven Of y Roebuck men at 10 at night got onboard y Roebuck anchor being her small bowerand fourteen fath[om] of cable In giting of whicho[ur] Longboat Lost her Grapnel’. Though thelocation of the other grapnels nearby lessened theimpact of this find, on balance it was concludedthat the bell, the clam, the once-tangled grapnel,the concreted ironwork and other debris werean assemblage from HM ship Roebuck (seeMcCarthy, 2002).

The projected whereabouts of the main wreckThe bell is considered the least reliable indicatorto the whereabouts of the main site, given that it

Figure 10. The Clarence Bay bell (Geoff Kimpton).



could have travelled on its belfry of wood quitesome distance from the main wreck before itdisintegrated. The clam would have been storedbelow decks and would have moved only afterthe ship began to disintegrate. In this context it ispertinent to note that when it was removed fromthe cleft in the rock and placed on a sand bottomnearby with its internal surface upwards, it wasflipped over by one particularly heavy swell. Asthe swell did not begin to pick up until quiteclose to the beach it is expected that the clamhas not moved far off the site. The ceramicsare another clue, given their intact status andrelatively un-eroded state. It is postulated thatthey could not have travelled far, nor beenexposed for any length of time.

When these objects are considered together,they appear to indicate that Roebuck broke up,and did not float back out to sea after it wasabandoned. In fixing the limits of the site, thereis the evidence that Roebuck was warped in toground full up to the hatches, most likely against

the line of submerged rocks, a cable’s lengthfrom the shore (Fig. 11). Then it ‘sank’. At firstglance, the 3 1/2 fathoms (6.4 m) of water recordedby Dampier appears an inordinate draft forsuch a small vessel, even when waterlogged, buton reflection the answer was found in the newly-found contract for the building of Roebuck.When examined against other comparative datait allows the c.4 m from the bottom of Roebuck’skeel to the lower deck to be added to the c.1.7 mdistance from there up to the next layer of plankon the upper deck. With the lip of the hatchcoamings a foot or so atop, then a distance ofthree and a half fathoms (6.4 m) from bottom ofkeel to the top of the hatch coaming is obtained,adding further weight to the evidence from thecourt martial.

This all provides some indication that Roebuckwas warped in to rest on this line of rocks and ashort while after, apparently when the hull waspierced by them, it settled down onto the seabeda metre or so below. The inrush of water over the

Figure 11. Preliminary sketch of the site (J. Williams).



coamings when the ship settled after it was holedon one of these rocks would provide theimpression of having sunk. Then it appears tohave disintegrated and spread its wreckageplume inshore. If these deductions hold true,then the reef provides the outer (seaward) limitsto the Roebuck site. While a search presented noconclusive indications of 18th century wreckageat the exposed base of any part of the reef, therewas substantial sand cover throughout whichcould hide indicators of the main site. If it isnot to be discounted, the once-tangled grapnelfound near the clam is a possible indicator ofthe position of the cable that once stretchedfrom the Roebuck to the anchor rowed ashore inorder to warp the stricken vessel in to shore.Having agreed with both the Admiralty andthe Island Administrator to perform a non-disturbance study only, these conclusions werenot tested.

The aftermath of the findThe materials raised by the Museum team werestored in an on-site facility on Ascension Islandand then transported to the Mary RoseConservation Laboratory in Portsmouth,England. A full report of the search, survey andresearch phases of this project was produced andpromulgated, bringing to the attention of the

many stakeholders that Australia too has aninterest in these far distant remains. Included wasa series of 11 recommendations for management,site protection, education and display (includinga travelling exhibition), and further researchstrategies. A number of detailed appendices(historical data, artefact analyses, earlier reports,and legal analyses) were also included(McCarthy, 2002). The conserved bell and clamwere recently returned to the island for exhibitionand replicas were prepared and sent on toWestern Australia as agreed. Other researchprograms including plans of Roebuck, a model,and a detailed description of its form are inprogress (Sexton, in prep.).

Permission to return to Roebuck in associationwith local divers and Island heritage interests tocontinue the search for further exposed materialsand to examine the remains on shore was recentlygranted. This is subject to funding and successis again not assured, for as is so often the case,copious research, good management andassistance from local administrators, residentsand divers combine with good fortune to see aproject succeed. In this instance there wasinordinate good luck, for a few weeks after theMuseum team departed, the beach began toreturn to its normal configuration—and within afew months the site was again totally covered insand.

AcknowledgementsThe Western Australian Maritime Museum’s Dampier/de Freycinet Team in the field Carmelo Amalfi, Hugh Edwards, GeoffKimpton, John Lashmar, Cr Les Moss, Dr John Williams, doctor and artist, and this author, assisted by M. Philippe Godard,Dr John Hanrahan, Bob Sexton, Jon Davison, acknowledge the help and assistance of His Honour Geoffrey Fairhurst,Administrator, Ascension Island; Flt Lt Richard Burke, Mr Jimmy Young, the Ascension Island Dive Club, the AscensionHeritage Society, the British Admiralty, Robert King Receiver of Wreck in the Falkland Islands, Charles Barker, Sue Bickertonand Dr Mark Jones of Mary Rose Archaeological Services Ltd., Ms Shirley Slack-Smith, Dr Christiaan Jörg, Dr MichaelFlecker, Cmdr John Bingeman (RN Retd) and Hannah Cunliffe, contract researcher. Thanks also to the Western AustralianMuseum Foundation, the WA Museum Directors and my colleagues Pat Baker, Susan Cox, Jeremy Green, Bob Richards,Corioli Souter, Myra Stanbury, Margaret Triffit and Wendy Hood.

ReferencesAdnams, J. R., 1974, The Dartmouth, a British Frigate wrecked off Mull, 1690, IJNA 3.2: 269–74.Beken, M. (ed.), 1998, William Dampier, A New Voyage Round the World: The Journal of an English Buccaneer (first published

1697). London.Callander, J., 1768, Terra Australis Cognita or Voyages to the Terra Australis, reprinted 1967, Bibliotheca Australiana vol. 8.

Amsterdam and New York.Dampier, W., 1697, A New Voyage Round the World. London.Dampier, W., 1699, A Discourse of Trade-winds, Breezes, Storms Seasons of the Year, Tides and Currents of the Torrid Zone

throughout the World. London.Dampier W., 1701, Unpublished account of the loss of the Roebuck (PRO Adm 1/5262), reproduced in Williamson, 1939,

lviii–lix.



Dampier, W., 1703, A Voyage to New Holland &c. In the year 1699. London.Dampier, W., Journals, in J. Callander, 1768, Terra Australis Cognita or Voyages to the Terra Australis, reprinted 1967,

Bibliotheca Australiana vol. 8. Amsterdam and New York.Flecker, M., 2002, Ceramic Assessment, in M. McCarthy, His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck (1690–1701), 93–4. Department of

Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Report no 159.George, A. S., 1999, William Dampier in New Holland: Australia’s First Natural Historian. Victoria.McCarthy, M., 1998, Investigations at the Zuytdorp sites, in J. Green, M. Stanbury, and F. Gaastra, The ANCODS Collo-

quium. Australian National Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, SpecialPublication No. 3. Fremantle.

McCarthy, M., 2002 (with contributions from A. George, M. Flecker, P. Godard, C. Jörg, G. Kimpton, R. Sexton, S. Slack-Smith, and J. Williams), His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck (1690–1701). Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Austral-ian Maritime Museum, Report No 159.

McCarthy, M., in prep., The evolution of the ‘broad arrow’ on ship’s bells. Report, Department of Maritime Archaeology,WA Maritime Museum.

McCarthy, M. and Godard, P., 2001, HM ship Roebuck: clues to its location and subsequent identification: Utilising WilliamDampier’s own accounts and the logs of various Captains and Masters of HMS Anglesey, HMS Hastings, HMS Lizard.Together with the accounts of John Hughes, Master John Penton, Carpenter’s Mate Mark Doyd? Boatswain’s Mate, StephenDolling and Charles Harbree. Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Report No155.

MacFall, N., 2000, Where is Roebuck? The Islander, 20 April, reproduced in M. McCarthy, 2002, His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck(1690–1701), 91–2. Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Report no 159.

Marchant, L. R., 1988, An Island unto Itself. William Dampier & New Holland. Perth.Martin, C. J. M., 1978, The Dartmouth, a British Frigate wrecked off Mull, 1690. 5 The ship, IJNA 7.1: 29–58.Marx, R., 1983, Ascension-an island surrounded by treasure, Argosy. New Jersey.Masefield, J. (ed.), 1906, Dampier’s Voyages. Consisting of a New Voyage Round the World, A Supplement to the Voyage Round

the World. Two Voyages to Campeachy, a Discourse of Winds, a Voyage to New Holland, and a Vindication, in answer to theChimerical Relation of William Funnell. London.

Packer, J. E., 1968, The Ascension Handbook: A concise guide to Ascension Island. South Atlantic. Ascension Island.Roach, J. A., 1996, Appendix: sunken warships and military aircraft, Underwater archaeology and the Titanic: The legal

considerations, in A. Jarvis et al., 1996, Proceedings, IXth International Congress of Maritime Museums. National MaritimeMuseum, London.

Sexton, R., 2002, Preliminary notes on HM ship Roebuck, in M. McCarthy, His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck (1690–1701), 95.Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Report no 159.

Sexton, R., in prep., His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck. Department of Maritime Archaeology Western Australian MaritimeMuseum, Report.

Slack-Smith, S., 2002, Assessment of the Clam, in M. McCarthy, His Majesty’s Ship Roebuck (1690–1701), 95. Departmentof Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Report no 159.

Tebbs, C. R., 1986, Maritime Ascension, 85. Report of the Joint Services Expedition to Ascension Island 15 October to 3December, 1985. Royal Airforce Sub Aqua Association. H 1310/87. RN Hydrographic Office.

Wilkinson, C., 1929, William Dampier. London.Williamson, J. A. (ed.), 1939, A Voyage to New Holland: By William Dampier. London.

Manuscript sources, Public Record Office, LondonADM 1/5262, William Dampier’s unpublished account of the loss of the Roebuck, 29 September 1701ADM 1/15262/20184, accounts of the loss of the Roebuck, John Penton, carpenter’s mate, Charles Harbree and John Hughes,

masterADM 51/3859, Captain’s Log, HMS Hastings, 1701ADM 51/4114, Captain’s Log, HMS Anglesey, 1701

Documents

HM Ship Roebuck (1690–1701): Global Maritime Heritage?