1993 expedition *
The Queensland Museum's next major expedition was not mobilised until January 1993. Funding shortfalls had prevented continuation of fieldwork after the 1986 season. In fact, by the early 1990s a decision to close down the site was actually being considered. This was predicated by the realisation that funding shortfalls would likely continue to rule out implementation of a timely program of excavation and ongoing conservation.
Any decision to close down the site, however, would have consequences. The most important consequence was that close-down may expose the hull remains, and the artefact assemblage buried within and around it, to accelerated deterioration. This was recognised as a major risk factor, especially in areas where the sea bed had been destabilised by excavation and subsequent backfilling during the 1980s.
Before close-down could be carried out, it was considered especially important to determine whether biological deterioration of the buried organic remains had been accelerated by destabilisation. For instance, by exposing to oxygenated waters previously buried parts of the hull remains which, before disturbance, had been well-insulated by a relatively stable layer of covering sediment.
* See Gesner, 2000 (Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, Cultural Heritage Series, Vol.2).
Objectives
The objectives of the 1993 expedition were therefore management-oriented, in particular towards gathering biological data. It was felt that this data would be useful to inform effective strategies for long-term conservation of the site.
The objectives included:
- gathering of sediment samples to assess biological deterioration rates within the sediments;
- experimentation with physical means of protecting the wreck from destabilising environmental impacts, in particular protection of backfilled areas deemed vulnerable to the physical effects of currents and wave motion;
- recording of more extensive remote-sensing images of the buried hull remains; and,
- limited probing to confirm, in the midship and bow sections, that the starboard edge of the preserved hull lay where it was expected.
Fieldwork
Fieldwork to gather the required information was successfully completed in January 1993 from the expedition's mother vessel TSMV Pacific Conquest. The expedition team was led and directed by the QM's Curator of Maritime Archaeology, Peter Gesner. It comprised an 18 member expedition team* of museum staff, volunteers and professionals from Queensland, as well as from interstate agencies in Western Australia and New South Wales. Three RAN clearance divers were also seconded to the expedition from HMAS Moreton under the Defence Force Assistance to the Civilian Community Program.
* 1993 expedition team: Gesner, Delaney, Campbell, Ianna, Cranitch (QM), Dr Tom Fallowfield (TGH), Colin Hodson & Kay Walker (The Dive Bell), Graeme Henderson & Geoff Kimpton (WAMM), David Nutley (Heritage NSW), Lt Paul Smith, PO Howard Smith, AB Simon Chambers (RAN), Len Zell, Cos Coroneos, Mark McCafferty and Dr Peter Sullivan (volunteers).
Sediment studies
Samples were extracted manually from pre-disturbance and post-disturbance locations to gather data for a microbiological research project titled "The effect of sediment disturbance on bacterial activity, its relationship to preservation of buried organic wreck materials". This project was designed by Peter Gesner in close collaboration with a CSIRO consultant, Dr David Moriarty, and with the University of Queensland's Department of Microbiology. Its purpose: to determine whether biological activity within covering and insulating sediment layers varied between pre- and post-disturbance site locations. The project was carried out in the context of research toward a PhD thesis at the University of Queensland by Ms Jodie Guthrie ("The microbial ecology of the marine sediments surrounding HMS Pandora", PhD thesis, Dept of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Queensland, July 2002).
Remote-sensing survey and trenching
Geologists Bob Carter and Kevin Hooper from James Cook University visited the site for three days, deploying a 3.5 KHz sub-bottom profiler to conduct a remote sensing survey. The profiler was towed across ten transects at five metre intervals on the surface directly above the site area. By conducting the survey across these ten transects, a close-plot image was obtained of the sub-surface area.
Trenching was also carried out to verify the projected outline of the starboard hull remains. A small trench was excavated in grids 104 and 106/125 to locate the starboard edge of the sheathing amidships, and thereby confirm the expected orientation of the hull remains. After several days of excavation, the edge of the sheathing was exposed in the expected area. Subsequently it was possible to follow the top edge of the sheathing for nearly eight metres towards the bow section (i.e. into grid 163) by shallow excavation of the sediment.
Probes excavated in the midship trench (grids 102, 104 and 106) also revealed that this (inboard) area did not contain similar artefact clusters to those located in the grids spanning the officers' cabins and wardroom in the stern section. No artefacts were located inboard on top of the remaining timbers; several copper fastenings and a copper cauldron (MA 3010) were located well outside the confines of the preserved hull.
Download the Carter-Hooper report (PDF - 2.4 Mb).
Physical protection
Although consolidation and strengthening of the protective layer laid over the 1986 trench was a major expedition objective, time had been lost at the beginning of this short season due to three days of adverse weather conditions. Consequently, very little work was undertaken to stabilise the sediment within previously trenched and backfilled areas.
However, the midship trench (grids 104, 106 and 125) was stabilised by backfilling, and covered by approximately eight square metres of a nylon mesh fabric (shade cloth) weighted down with sand-filled polyurethane bags. It was hoped these materials would provide a more stable and effective means of backfilling and stabilisation than the covering method used in 1983, 1984 and 1986, when heavy black plastic lining was spread over the excavated area and subsequently backfilled.
Several concerns had been raised about the plastic sheet materials used in 1983, 1984 and 1986. The two most urgent concerns were its temporary nature and that its surface was not textured. The latter did not favour adequate compacting of the backfill with the underlying, undisturbed layer of sediment. Particularly, it appeared to prevent bonding of the layer of backfill with underlying sediment.
This had been observed during a monitoring dive in April 1988 carried out by Peter Gesner, who accidentally dropped a small "dumpy" hammer while swimming across the site several metres off the seabed. The hammer almost completely disappeared into the sediment after it struck the seabed. Having seen where the hammer came to rest, it was retrieved and in doing so the relatively quicksand-like state of the seabed was observed. Upon further inspection, it was found that this occurred only where backfill had been deposited on top of plastic lining. It appeared that the backfill was loosely suspended on top of the plastic lining, unable to bond with the underlying sediment.
The permeable shade cloth and sandbag method used in 1993 was subsequently found to be effective. During an inspection dive in August 1994 conducted by museum diver Warren Delaney, the cluster of bags weighting down the shade cloth were observed to be almost completely buried; indicating that they acted as traps for current-borne sediment. A recently deposited sediment layer of approximately 20 cm appeared to have covered the shade cloth and sandbagged area, thereby adding an extra layer of protection, which, moreover, had bonded with the underlying backfill because of the permeability and textured surface of the shade cloth.
Re-interment of human skeletal remains
Another objective was the consecration and placement on-site of a memorial obelisk containing the skeletal remains of one of the Pandora's crew. (These remains had been retrieved from grid 70 during the 1986 excavation.) After a "Service for burial at sea", conducted by RAN Chaplain Mark Wallbank, the consecrated obelisk was lowered from the deck and placed on the seabed adjacent to the wreck site.
An inscribed perspex plaque, set into the obelisk, contains the following text:
"The 24 gun frigate Pandora was sent into the South Pacific in pursuit of the BOUNTY. After a search of 4 months the frigate was returning to England with 14 mutineers imprisoned in a temporary cell constructed on her quarterdeck. The Pandora struck a submerged reef to the east of this site. This monument contains the skeletal remains of one of Pandora's crew who perished with 30 of his shipmates and 4 mutineers when the Pandora foundered and came to rest here on 29 August 1791. This wreck is a protected historic site (Historic Shipwrecks Act, 1976) and has been partially excavated by the Queensland Museum."
Prior to re-interment, the skeletal remains had been anatomically examined by Geraldine Hodgeson, an anatomist associated with the University of Queensland's Anatomy Department. This examination indicated that they were of an adult male of between 22 and 25 years of age, who had been approximately 1.65 metres tall and had possibly suffered from rickets as an adolescent.
The identity of this individual has not yet been determined. It is thought that he most probably is one of the two sailors whom surgeon George Hamilton mentions were killed while the Pandora's crew was trying to save the ship immediately after she had been refloated from Pandora Reef. It is easy to imagine how, in the interests of keeping up the crew's morale, these two dead sailors would have been taken below, to be buried at sea after the ship had been saved. To date it has unfortunately not been possible to determine the names of these two individuals among the names of the 35 men known to have died during the wrecking of the Pandora.
An alternative to this scenario has been put forward, suggesting that the skeletal remains may be one of the four mutineers who drowned when the ship sank. However, this is thought to be unlikely, in light of information provided by James Morrison, one of the surviving mutineers. Morrison mentions that immediately after the Pandora foundered, the roof of the prison cell ("Pandora's Box") floated up and was used as a raft by several of the survivors. Thus, any of the prisoners who might have drowned inside the cell while the ship was sinking would most likely have floated out of the wreck as their corpse became bloated upon decomposition. Perhaps somewhat gruesome to contemplate, but without doubt his remains would soon have been eaten by the scavenging denizens of the deep!