1995 expedition
Background and rationale
The Museum's next season was of the same duration as the 1993 season. It was made possible by the QM's Board of Trustees, which advanced funds for a three week expedition to continue fieldwork to keep the project in the public eye, in anticipation of funds to be raised by the Pandora Foundation.
The Pandora Foundation had been established as a result of a joint Ministerial and Trustees' initiative. The Foundation's purpose was to carry out fundraising in North Queensland so the Museum could capitalise on a subsidy offer made by the Queensland Government in 1994, which agreed to allocate to a reinvigorated Pandora Project $1 million as a $1 subsidy for every $2 raised by the Foundation.
Revival of the Pandora Project had come about upon ministerial urging (by the Hon. Dean Wells, Queensland's Attorney General and Minister for the Arts) that the Museum should review and assess several options to continue archaeological investigation. The QM directorate's strategic review took into account the cultural significance of the wreck, as well as the socioeconomic potential of its public display.
Two of three options subsequently considered by the Museum's senior management team included an assessment of the feasibility of retrieval, conservation and display of the wreck, along similar lines as the Mary Rose Project in the UK. The third option considered recovery and conservation of the wreck's moveable contents only.
The review determined that any informed decisions regarding the raising of the hull should only be made with reliable information about the extent and structural coherence of the hull remains.
With the realisation that reliable information would not be available until after the archaeological removal of the sediment layer covering the wreck, a decision was made to concentrate first on recovery of the artefacts lying within this layer. Consideration of the feasibility of options to recover the wrecked hull remains along similar lines as the Mary Rose project was therefore postponed to another review; to be conducted at an unspecified time in the future, when more pertinent information about the extent and integrity of the hull remains would be to hand.
The review's summary concluded:
"[It is] premature to discuss the potential of the Pandora in terms of a Mary Rose -like project because there is no definitive indication of how much hull is preserved … The two conclusions at this stage are:
- raising the hull is considered unjustifiable, firstly in terms of its potential to advance knowledge and, secondly, in economic terms with respect to developing a viable tourist attraction; and
- retrieval/conservation/display of the artefact assemblage is justifiable in terms of the cultural significance of the material and threats from vandalism or further inevitable weathering."
With enunciation of this-arguably more realistic and financially more attainable-rationale, the Museum's Curator of Maritime Archaeology, Peter Gesner, was tasked to estimate what resources would be required for archaeological retrieval and conservation of the wreck's moveable contents only, and to draft a management and excavation plan.
These plans called for five expeditions-each of approximately six weeks duration-to be carried out by a multi-skilled team comprising 20 to 25 site-experienced professionals.
The cost of these expeditions (in 1995 figures) was estimated at approximately $320,000 each, with additional outlays of approximately $180,000 per year to provide for additional specialist contract staff to assist museum staff with implementation of a timely program of conservation and collection management. These estimates assumed continuation of the cost-neutral voluntary community and interstate peer group support that the Museum's previous Pandora expeditions had enjoyed, as well as continued support from internal QM resources, in particular personnel from the Maritime Archaeology, Conservation, Photography, Marketing/PR and Public Programs Sections.
Objectives
The 1995 expedition was conducted as a dress rehearsal for a projected series of five major expeditions, and also to maintain the project's momentum and high public profile, by providing publicity and promotional material for the Pandora Foundation's planned fundraising campaign in 1996.
Several objectives were formulated to suit the short duration of the expedition, including the testing of a newly-established four-point mooring system. Installed by a marine engineering contractor in December 1994, the mooring system was designed to hold a substantial mother vessel in position directly over the wreck.
Fieldwork
The expedition team was led by Peter Gesner. It comprised the majority of personnel from the 1993 expedition. Excavation was conducted in two site areas between 20 January and 5 February 1995. A team of sixteen divers, again operating from the TSMV Pacific Conquest, used SSB equipment and the same type of excavation plant as on previous excavations.
Midship area
A previously excavated trench spanning grids 106 and 125 was partially reopened-an object partially uncovered during the 1993 season was thought to be a carronade. Initially, it was thought this carronade could easily be retrieved. However, further excavation subsequently identified the object as a length of a pump chamber-most probably associated with the Pandora's chain pump, which appeared to have toppled out of the hull as the superstructure collapsed and disintegrated.
In addition to establishing that the pump chamber appeared to extend several metres into the seabed outside the hull remains, an array of concreted iron or metal fittings associated with the pump assemblage was uncovered. These concreted fittings were attached to the chamber and presented a cat's cradle of objects, apparently attached to the top end of the pump chamber. Further work to disentangle this array, and thereby isolate the chamber and locate the cistern, was deemed beyond the scope of the expedition's objectives. Consequently, grid 106 was backfilled and stabilised with shade cloth and sand-filled polyurethane bags.
Stern area
The selected excavation area in the stern was in grids 68 and 70, where two large concretions (each measuring approximately 1.3 x 1.15 x 0.5 metres) were located. Each concretion was expected to lie on top of a cluster of fragile artefacts. The largest concretion was a carronade lying in grid 70; it was tackled first. The primary objective here was to first excavate around and under it-to get out of harm's way the clustered objects expected to lie underneath.
It was immediately apparent that a diverse concentration of objects was clustered under the concreted carronade. Retrieval of the objects required more time than anticipated, as several fragile objects (for instance an intact coconut and an apothecary's jar containing mercury) were found firmly attached to the base of the concretion. To avoid breakage, it was imperative to dislodge these prior to raising the concretion.
Gradually the base of the concretion was fully exposed after smaller objects were dislodged from it and the sediment had been dredged away from around the base. Given that the base of the concretion was not attached to an underlying concretion, it was subsequently prepared for lifting. To this end, a prefabricated iron and timber litter was assembled on the seabed next to the concretion. After attaching airbags and lifting slings under the concretion, the airbags were filled and the carronade guided onto the litter. Once on the litter, the airbags were deflated and the concretion was wrapped in webbing and secured. The litter was estimated to weigh between 0.7 and 0.9 tonne. It was successfully raised by crane onto the deck of the Pacific Conquest.
Excavation was subsequently continued in the area where the concretion had been situated. The area contained several dense and diverse clusters of artefacts. The deposition of these clusters was subsequently analysed and found to be contiguous with the clusters retrieved from the adjacent area in grids 70 and 89 during the 1986 expedition. As they predominantly contained personal possessions, they were thought to be part of the same assemblage that could be provenanced to the wardroom, the officers' pantry and the second lieutenant's cabin.
Because the concretion from grid 70 had required more work than anticipated, time constraints prevented work on the concretion in grid 68. However, during excavation of the first concretion, a swivel gun had been noticed in the adjacent grid (grid 72). Upon inspection, it appeared easy to retrieve; consequently one dive team was detached from excavation work to raise the gun.
Sediment sampling
Sediment samples were collected for microbiological analysis from various locations within the wreck. In addition to locations where samples had been collected during previous expeditions, a series of samples was collected from a 12 metre transect laid out across the bow section between the 40.0 and 50.10 grid reference poles. This transect covered unexcavated as well as excavated areas.
Conclusion
With the raising of the concreted carronade (MA 4190) from grid 70, and the swivel gun (MA 4028) from grid 72, one of the expedition's main objectives was achieved. In accomplishing this objective, useful experience was gained for future reference.
Achieving the main objective was largely due to the Pacific Conquest's ability to remain in position directly over the wreck during diving operations. This proved a crucial factor for efficient and safe diving and artefact recovery, enabling large, heavy objects to be directly lifted from the seabed onto the deck of the mother vessel.
Another important factor contributing to the expedition's success was the composition and experience of the expedition team*. More than half of the team was experienced in work-diving at the Pandora wreck site.
* 1995 team members: Gesner, Delaney, Campbell, Bruce, Cranitch, Ianna (all QM), Colin Hodson (The Dive Bell), Dr Tom Fallowfield (TGH), Jodie Guthrie (UQ), Len Zell, Peter and Libby Illidge, Heath Bell (volunteers), Antonia Syme and Kieran Hosty (ANMM), Bill Jeffery (Heritage SA), Mike Nash (Tasmania NPWS) and Dena Garratt (WAMM).