[Shannon Ricles] Hi, everyone.
Thank you for joining us today for our webinar
All Along the Waterfront:
Archeological Investigations of Chesapeake Bay Oyster Boats.
I'm Shannon Ricles, the Education and Outreach Coordinator
for Monitor and Mallows Bay National Marine Sanctuaries,
and I'm going to be one of your hosts today.
-: And I'm Jessie Frayser,
the Education and Outreach Support Specialist
for Monitor and Mallows National Marine Sanctuary,
and I'll be your co-host.
-: Hmm. There we go.
This webinar is brought to you
by NOAA's Monitor National Marine Sanctuary in collaboration
with the North Carolina Office of State Archeology.
-: Partnering since 1975, NOAA
and the state of North Carolina work to research,
honor, and protect the hallmarks of North Carolina's
underwater cultural heritage, shipwrecks.
These shipwrecks hold information
about the ever-changing technologies
and cultural and physical landscapes.
They serve as a uniquely accessible underwater museum
and a memorial to generations of mariners
who lived, died, worked, and fought off our shores.
This is one of the many webinars
we'll be hosting in the coming months
for the Submerged North Carolina Webinar Series
in collaboration with the North Carolina Office
of State Archeology.
-: Monitor is just one of 15 national marine sanctuaries
and two marine national monuments
in the National Marine Sanctuary System.
The system encompasses more than 620,000 square miles
of marine and Great Lakes waters
from Washington state to the Florida Keys
and from Lake Huron to American Samoa.
Now during the presentation,
all attendees will be in listen-only mode.
You're welcome to type questions for the presenter
into the question box at the bottom of the control panel
on the right hand side of your screen.
This is the same area
You can let us know about any technical issues
you may be having that we can help you with.
We'll be monitoring those incoming questions
and technical issues,
and we'll respond to them just as soon as we can.
We are recording this session, and we'll share the recording
with registered participants via the webinar archive page,
and a URL for this webpage
will be provided at the end of the presentation.
[Jessie] So now we are happy to welcome Patrick Boyle,
a doctoral student with Texas A&M University's
Nautical Archeological Program.
-: Okay, I'm going to share the screen with you now Patrick.
-: All right, is that working for you?
-: That works.
-: All right, excellent.
Well, thank you for joining me today
and thank you everyone else who's participating.
For this presentation,
I'll be discussing my research involving a small shipwreck
located in the Pamlico River of North Carolina,
which I examined for my master's thesis
at East Carolina University
and how that research has expanded
into a doctoral dissertation program for a project.
To begin, I need to discuss the history
of the oyster fishery
and the vessels I will be referring to.
The historic Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery
is significant part of the United States'
overall maritime narrative that is well documented.
Oysters were a vital food source for Native Americans
and were often stockpiled for celebrations.
European colonists survived by eating oysters
when they exhausted their own food supplies.
And as colonial communities developed
in the Chesapeake Bay region,
the oyster fishery played a fundamental part
in its economy, expansion, and maritime history.
The Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery is one of the largest
and most profitable fisheries
and is still prevalent in the coastal communities today.
An elevated demand for oysters occurred
in the mid 19th century,
creating an oyster boom for the Chesapeake Bay.
Both professional and opportunistic fishers
hurried to join the lucrative fishery.
The small oyster boats used in the region for decades
to tong the shallow oyster beds
were quickly modified to carry larger equipment
for dredging the deep areas of the bay.
The Chesapeake Bay region was home to a variety
of small vernacular watercraft.
However, only a few in particular
were designed specifically for oystering.
The original oyster boats were small log canoes,
easily maneuvered by one or two people.
They could traverse the shallow areas
and were used primarily for tonging.
As oystering became more lucrative during the oyster boom,
larger boats were needed to obtain more oysters.
The log canoe eventually developed into the brogan.
The brogan was still relatively small
and rarely reached lengths of 45 feet.
These boats were undecked and log constructed
and were primarily used for tonging as well.
As dredging was introduced,
fishers wanted bigger, more powerful boats.
The pungy developed from the much larger traditional built
schooners of the bay.
These were essentially smaller versions of these schooners,
which carried the same sail configuration
and had a lot of deck space in which to work.
Though the pungy could dredge under sail,
it unfortunately could only traverse
the deep areas of the Chesapeake Bay,
and the deep hull would not allow the vessel
to enter shallow areas to offload its cargo.
So as the smaller coastal communities
developed their own oyster houses, they couldn't really rely
on these larger vessels all the time.
This issue was eventually solved
by the introduction of the bugeye.
Bugeyes had to striking the resemblance to pungies.
They could often not even be told apart from each other
if they had the same rig.
However, bugeyes traditionally carried
a leg-of-mutton sail configuration
instead of a schooner rig.
The bugeye vessels became popular
in the Chesapeake Bay region in the 1860s
and were constructed from multiple hollowed out logs
that were pinned together.
The main differences between bugeyes and pundies was
that the bugeyes had a slightly flatter hull
and contained a centerboard which allowed the vessel
to dredge as well as traverse the shallow waters.
Traditionally built bugeyes were built
with that log hull construction.
These were the most commonly built bugeyes,
which were first built in the region in the 1860s
and were typically built to lengths of approximately 59 feet
or about 18 meters.
Early bugeye vessels were made from five or more logs
with framed top sides and were carvel planked up to the deck
The frames connected to the keel log,
though the midships frame stopped at the centerboard case.
Many improvements were made to the bugeye
throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
and typical construction methods
varied from builder to builder.
As timber became scarce and more expensive
toward the end of the 19th century, building bugeyes
through the traditional log construction method
was not ideal.
At some point in the 1880s, Chesapeake Bay builders
began to construct bugeyes using planks and frames.
The evolution of the oyster boats
did not stop with the bugeye,
though the bugeye remained the preferred oyster boat
throughout the oyster boom.
It was still expensive and time consuming to build.
Since many fishers wanted to catch oysters,
they needed a way to build a boat
that had all the advantages
without being so expensive and time consuming to build.
Thus, the skipjack was created.
These vessels were built
right at the end of the oyster boom.
They had only one mast, they did have a centerboard case
and they had a completely flat bottom,
a minimal number of large frames and floors
and a hard shine with no curved sides.
These vessels were easy and quick to build
and they were still capable of dredging deep waters
and traversing the shallow areas.
Although late 19th century bugeye vessels
are historically documented, the physical remains
of these vessels are rarely examined
in the archeological record.
The few that have been recorded, however, provide evidence
of specific shipbuilding features
that are not known in the historical record.
So how do these Chesapeake Bay oyster boats relate
to the maritime heritage of North Carolina?
Well, while studying at East Carolina University,
I had a plan to survey a small wreck located
in the Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary
but I was unable to carry this out
because of the COVID pandemic.
Luckily, the professors at ECU were able
to come up with a safety plan that allowed us
to undertake a fall field school in 2020
right in the middle of COVID.
So we were limited surveying areas
in the local Tar-Pamlico River
at the historic Port of Washington.
And one site in particular intrigued me.
This was the remains of a wooden vessel
that contained a centerboard
and was locally known as the Centerboard Wreck.
Centerboard Wreck had been known about
since at least the 1980s
and was often used as a site to teach students
how to record in blackwater.
However, no one examined it in detail
and I decided to undertake this from my thesis project.
Here you can see the location of the wreck
across from downtown Washington on the Pamlico River.
The site is located in about three feet of blackwater
and traditional recording methods were implemented,
specifically baseline and offset measurements
and direct measurements.
Here is a preliminary sketch of what the vessel looks like.
This was drawn out by the measurement data
collected by taking offsets
and measuring some of the larger features in more detail.
Larger features included the stem assembly,
which included multiple timbers, frames and ceiling planking
Here's a profile view of the same area.
Here's a drawing of the remnants of the centerboard case.
All of these drawings were developed
by different students on the project.
I just digitally illustrated them afterward.
This image of the sternpost and stern timbers
a pintle and gudgeon from the rudder were still in place,
and the rudder itself was detached
but in close proximity to the stern post.
It does have a slight curve
which is indicative of Chesapeake Bay rudders,
which I thought was pretty interesting.
Over 30 artifacts were recorded on the site.
These were not taken for conservation,
but instead left where they were found.
We drew and photographed each artifact
before returning them.
Many of the artifacts provided evidence
for the wreck being related to the historic oyster industry,
including this dredge rake,
which was fastened to an oyster dredge.
As you can see here.
And a closer image.
These tooth dredge rakes would scrape the oyster beds
and the oysters would be captured in the dredge basket
and brought back on board.
We found four of these rakes, which is common,
because as the teeth were worn down
they would need to be replaced.
So spares were often carried on board.
We also found a stove leg.
Stoves were common on fishing boats for the longer voyages.
We also found a large heavy cylinder.
It took me a while to figure out what this was,
and it turns out it's a vertical dredge roller,
which helped prevent the dredge cable
from running against the side of the vessel.
We also found some reading elements,
including this bobstay fitting.
The bobstay fitting was placed on the stem
and connected to the bobstay by a chain.
This piece also confused me for a while,
until I came across this exploded view of a windless.
Apparently it's called the purchase link
and shackle that was part of the windless system.
We also found a portion of a deck hatch cover,
as well as ice tongs,
which were also common on fishing vessels
to carry blocks of ice on board
that would help whatever catch stay fresh on board.
And most importantly, we actually found some oysters.
This is significant because oysters do not inhabit
that part of the river,
which means they were likely caught using the vessel.
While recording the wreck,
my initial research questions included what are the origins
of the North Carolina oyster fishery
and the development of Washington's oyster trade.
Was the wreck employed in Washington's industry
or is it simply abandoned there?
It seemed like every day on site
I would have more questions with no answers.
So what did I initially learn from the wreck?
Well, this vessel led me to find
that the small port of Washington
had a very significant maritime history
and was somehow related to the oyster industry.
Next up was looking into the historical record
and I quickly found out that Washington's involvement
in the industry was evident in primary documents,
but not so much in modern secondary sources.
Unlike the Chesapeake Bay, which was the hub of oystering
during the late 19th century,
North Carolina had no port dedicated
to importing or exporting oysters.
Instead, the state had a variety
of small local oyster markets in coastal towns.
The lack of railroads and fast transportation
precluded the growth of a larger market.
Yet in the late 1880s, the North Carolina oyster industry
was subject to a rise in activity.
After the Chesapeake Bay fishers over harvested
their oyster beds,
they came to North Carolina sounds in search of more.
They set up oyster houses, used their own vessels
and equipment and actually shipped the canned oysters
back to Baltimore to be sold as Chesapeake Bay oysters.
Washington quickly became
an important port for the industry.
Already a large port before the Chesapeake Bay fishers came,
Washington saw the exportation of tobacco,
turpentine, and textiles.
The Chesapeake Bay influence can be seen
in Washington's history.
Around 1890, an oyster canning factory opened in the town
that employed over 150 people.
The business was very successful,
and oyster shells were so prevalent in Washington
that they literally had to burn them to get rid of them.
The streets were surfaced with shells
and a massive lime kiln
was built on the island in the river.
The townspeople thought the kiln funnels
made the island look like a castle,
and it is called Castle Island today.
Unfortunately, the Chesapeake Bay oysterers
did not learn their lesson
and they quickly overfished the Pamlico Sound as well.
Maps and charts were very important in my research
as they showed buildings that were no longer in the town,
two of which were significant
to the maritime history of Washington.
The J.S. Farren & Co canning house
was Washington's Oystering facility.
It was located on Water Street
next to the J.R. Farrow Shipyard,
where the town's festival park and estuary
are presently located.
It was owned and operated by a Baltimore firm.
These maps show the years 1891 on the left
and 1911 on the right.
You can see how the factory slightly expanded over time.
A 1909 issue of the Washington Daily News
contained an article discussing a visit
from one of the company's representatives visiting
the J.S Farren & Co branch at Washington.
At this point in time, the factory had been shut down
for two years.
The article suggests that nearly 200 people
were working for the facility at this time,
but they would need assurances
that enough oysters could be caught
to justify the reopening.
A 1916 issue of the same newspaper contains an article
discussing the effects the facility
had on the oyster population.
The article mentions at least four boats being docked
at the facility to offload oysters,
and the author claimed that the rate
at which the oystermen were going, it would not be long
until the oyster beds were entirely depleted.
Charts were also important to my investigation
as one in particular from 1871
showed appear in some buildings
in the vicinity of the wreck site.
We noticed pure remains during our survey
and the small point on the map is labeled windmill,
which one of my colleagues found the structure
of the windmill in this vicinity
for his own master's research.
Unfortunately, not much was recorded of these buildings
and all I could find was that the location
was probably used for a ferry before the bridge was built.
This chart from 1915 depicts the pier remains
and a wreck in the location.
Notably the wreck symbol is to the west of the pier
where a different wreck is also located.
There is no wreck symbol for the Centerboard Wreck.
So it's possible that the vessel was abandoned in the area
sometime after 1915.
I was fortunate enough to find many historical photographs
from the time period and region.
This image supposedly depicts
the oyster canning house in Washington.
However, some historians believe this to be
another port city of North Carolina
as the terrain is a little off.
However, those docked vessels
are almost certainly Chesapeake Bay boats.
Another image of this post canning factory
depicting many people involved in the industry
with boxes of canned oysters.
This is one of my favorite images,
as it depicts oysters being unloaded from a vessel
by African Americans who made up the majority of crews
of oyster boats.
The depicted boat also shows a vessel that is similar
to many Chesapeake based schooners of the time,
and oystering equipment can also be seen throughout,
including the dredge, the hand winders
for the dredge and the rollers on either side.
Although bugeyes in Chesapeake Bay oyster boat treatises
are thorough, they typically only focus on bugeyes
being used in the Chesapeake Bay
and rarely ever mention Bugeyes
being used in North Carolina.
But the primary sources indicate
that Bugeyes were an important ship type
used in North Carolina, especially in Washington,
which was then known as the oyster metropolis
of North Carolina.
Newspapers revealed a lot of information
about the industry and Bugeyes.
Bugeyes were often referred to by their exact vessel type.
Many newspapers explained that the vessels were used
as oyster boats, freight boats, and sometimes ferries.
Some are even identified by names
such as the bugeye named Hamlet.
Hamlet was originally used as an oyster boat
in the Chesapeake Bay,
but was eventually sold and used as an oyster boat
and freight boat in Elizabeth City.
Later it played an important role in shipping goods
from Washington to Ocracoke.
Hamlet is listed as being abandoned in Washington in 1931.
Unfortunately, I do not think Hamlet is the identification
of the Centerboard Wreck for one important reason.
The most diagnostic feature of the Centerboard Wreck is
the unique locations of the mast steps.
The mast steps in Centerboard case
were typically in line with keel in bugeye
as seen in this drawing of Lizzie Cox.
The forward mast step of the Centerboard Wreck is in line
with the keel, but the aft mast step is slightly forward
and not directly behind the centerboard case
and it's actually offset to the port side
and the centerboard case itself is also offset
to starboard slightly.
You can even tell how offset the centerboard case is
from the sonar image.
This feature is rare in bugeye
but has been noted in another wreck.
This image is of the site plan of the Hobbs wreck,
which is part of the Nansemond Ghost Fleet
in Suffolk, Virginia.
It looks nearly identical to the Centerboard Wreck,
so much so that they could be sister ships.
This Hobb Wreck is also a bugeye.
So this vessel also has that offset centerboard case
and identical locations of the mast steps.
So why were these bugeyes built this way?
It's likely because they carried a schooner rig
instead of the traditional leg-of-mutton rig.
And here again you can see the offset features
of the Centerboard Wreck and the differences
between the traditional leg of mutton rig on the left
and the square rigged or schooner rigged bugeye
on the right.
You can see how far apart the masks are on the left
and how much closer they are on the right.
I took the measurements of the Hobbs Wreck
and recreated what the rigging would've looked like,
and the schooner rig fist perfectly.
Since they are the same dimensions,
this is exactly what the Centerboard Wreck
would have also looked like as well.
Of the nearly 600 bugeyes built,
only 36 have been identified
as being square rigged or schooner rigged.
Of these 36, none are officially listed
as abandoned or wrecked in Washington,
however many of them are listed as abandoned
with the last home port as Baltimore.
So it's possible one of these boats was abandoned
after moving from Baltimore to Washington.
Unfortunately, Hamlet is not listed
as being a square rigged bugeye.
There is, however another bugeye wrecked
near Castle Island not far from the Centerboard Wreck
and I'm sure there are others we have not found yet.
So Hamlet is probably out there somewhere.
Bugeyes continue to be used in North Carolina
into the 1940s, '50s and even the 1960s
as freight boats for the Outer Banks.
A highway eventually connected the Outer Banks in the 1940s,
but no regular ferry was established to Ocracoke
until the 1950s,
and the last freight boat retired in the 1960s,
many of them being bugeyes.
These freight boats acted as a lifeline for Ocracoke
that would bring daily supplies to the island.
And I just think it's really interesting
that in the same decade
that the first person walked on the moon,
an entire island relied
on these 80-year-old wooden sailing oyster boats
for supplies to survive.
And maybe the Centerboard Wreck isn't one of these bugeye,
but maybe it is.
And before I finish up here,
I want to catch you up on where I am now.
So as I finished my thesis, which involved examining
all of these bugeyes within the context of North Carolina,
more questions were raised than I was able to answer,
and that's when I decided to expand this topic
into a dissertation project
in order to place the bugeye vessel type
into a larger context.
So the goal of my dissertation project is to examine
and digitally reconstruct three separate bugeye shipwrecks
dispersed throughout the Chesapeake Bay,
shown to have individually specific construction features
to identify the shipbuilding methods
not recorded in the historical record,
as well as to understand the variations
in construction methods of the bugeye vessel type.
The first site is known as the Bull Cove Bugeye
and the hull remains were discovered in 2019
when the vessel was exposed by erosion of the shoreline.
It is located on the west side of Virginia's Eastern Shore
on the Chesapeake Bay.
The vessel remains include nine hollowed logs
that form the hull, a centerboard case
and two highly deteriorated half frames.
Much of the vessel is exposed,
however, a portion of the stern is still covered on shore.
The dimensions for each log were obtained
by measuring the exposed portion
and probing the covered section.
Here is a preliminary site drawing.
The Bull Cove Bugeye is a perfect example
of the much more traditionally built log hulled bugeye.
The keel log measures about 46 feet
and provides the overall length of the vessel remains.
The thickness of the keel log varies throughout the vessel,
but is roughly about five inches.
The centerboard case measures about 12 feet in length
and contains the centerboard that is about 10.5 feet long.
And similar to the Hobbs Wreck,
here is a preliminary reconstruction
of the type of rig it carried.
And the second site I will be examining is the Hobbs Wreck,
which is suspended in the muddy banks
of the Nansemond River in Suffolk
and is about 46.5 feet long and 17.5 feet wide.
The wreck is entirely exposed at low tide
and was surveyed using traditional measuring methods
as well as laser scanning by archeologists
from Florida's St. Augustine Lighthouse
Archeological Maritime program, also known as LAMP.
And here's the rig reconstruction again,
I plan to do this with all three sites.
So there's one more to go,
which is the third shipwreck site that will be examined
and is located in the Mallows Bay-Potomac River
National Marine Sanctuaries designated
as site 114 or 18CH616.
The wreck was first recorded in 1996 by Don Shomette.
The site lies on its keel
close to the shore of Liverpool Cove
and is submerged in roughly three feet of water.
The shipwreck is double-ended
and measures about 46.5 feet long and about 14 feet wide.
Remaining features of the site include multiple frames,
two large mass steps and a centerboard case.
The forward mass step is indicative
of Chesapeake Bay built craft,
which were built from multiple wooden pieces.
However, the aft mast step
appears to be cut directly into one large frame piece
and might possibly be
a regionally specific shipbuilding feature
or something that was added as a repair.
Shomette suggests that the shipwreck was a sharpie,
likely used as a turtle scrape.
Sharpies however, are flat bottom boats
and have a hard turn of the bilge.
They're not double-ended, they do not have rounded frames
and they rarely exceed lengths of 35 feet.
The wreck only has two mast steps,
even though sharpies often had three mast steps
if they reached over 27 feet in length.
From simply comparing the recorded dimensions of site 114
to known sharpies and bugeyes,
the construction feature suggests
that the wreck is more likely to be
a plank and frame built bugeye.
This was actually the site I was going to originally survey
for my thesis before COVID canceled the project.
Seems that with or without COVID
I was going to be examining a bugeye no matter what.
The primary research goal for this project relates
to the information that will be discovered from historical
and archeological investigations of the three bugeye sites.
The main research questions are,
how did Bugeye construction differ
from individual ship builders,
and can evidence of these differences be gathered
from the archeological record?
Secondary research questions include,
what can be learned about bugeyes
through the historical data obtained through oral histories,
journals, ships, plans and photographs,
and how many variations of the bugeye type were built?
Can these variations be determined
in the archeological record?
So these are all things I hope to answer.
For my initial project that was thankfully funded
by the Institute of Nautical Archeology.
I traveled to the major maritime museums
around the Chesapeake Bay region last summer
to research in their archives
and obtained copies of historical photographs
and examine the artifacts
and hull remains the museums contained.
I spent two weeks visiting museums,
which included the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum,
Calvert Marine Museum and The Mariners' Museum,
as well as a few others.
I was able to examine artifacts, ships plans,
historic newspapers and oral history interviews.
The main source I examined
were the hundreds of historical photographs
related to the oyster industry.
Many of these photographs depicted different bugeyes
under sail, docked, and some that were wrecked.
Luckily, most of them were labeled with the vessel's name,
place and the date the photograph was taken,
as you can see here.
I think the final number of photographs I requested
from just one museum alone was about 94.
So there's a lot of material out there.
There was also a small collection of note cards
with all known information regarding specific bugeyes.
This ended up being a great source
that led me to other places in the archive
of the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum
that had useful material
that I likely would not have found without.
And this included this image of a vessel
that was labeled "Bugeye Bessie Lafayette,
abandoned Mallow Bay," and was taken sometime in the 1950s.
This could potentially be an image of site 114
and appears to be in the same location of the wreck,
which is very important for my project.
I was very excited to find this.
Someone included a little doodle of a bugeye
in one of the collections at some point
and they sealed it in plastic to preserve it.
And I thought that was great.
The archives had a lot of photographs
of schooner rig bugeyes that I had never seen before.
They also had a few images
of plank and frame bugeyes under construction.
These will be very beneficial to my project
and are likely the only images taken
of a bugeye being constructed.
There were also multiple photographs of bugeyes under sail.
Here you can see this bugeye dredging
and the large piles of oysters on deck.
This is a bugeye that was converted
to gas propeller propulsion and a deck house was added.
But probably one of the most important sources
at one of the museums was the hull remains of a bugeye
that they had displayed on the wall
in their small boat shed.
Even though a small portion of the vessel remains,
there were some very interesting features of these timbers.
The first feature was how the initial curve
of the bottom of the centerboard well
is shaped from the log itself, as you can see here.
The second feature is pretty interesting.
There's still an impression of where the ma step was placed.
And the final feature that I noticed was that these logs
were not pinned together as is typical for bugeyes
and the only historically recorded method
for connecting two logs that I have come across so far.
Instead, they're connected by pegged mortis
and tenon joints, which is a building tradition
I have yet to see recorded historically for these boats.
These remains are noteworthy to my project
and I plan on working with the museum
to further evaluate them.
To finish up, multiple aspects of my dissertation project
are historically and archeologically significant.
There are building traditions of the Chesapeake Bay bugeyes
that were not historically documented
and can only be determined through archeological remains.
Determining the differences in the construction styles
of the sites would be significant
due to the rarity of these vessels.
Only a few confirmed bugeye sites
have been documented archeologically
and the bugeye Edna E. Lockwood
of the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum
is the last remaining log hulled sailing bugeye
that still exists.
Examining the history of the Chesapeake Bay oyster industry
through the archeological remains of these vessels
will provide more information
to the historical narrative of the region.
Thank you all so much for joining me today,
and I would like to thank everyone that has helped me
with this project so far.
So if there are any questions,
I'd be able to have them.
[Shannon Ricles] All right, just a second
and I'll put up our question page.
I'm gonna take the controls back from you.
All right.
So if you have not entered any questions
into the question box yet, feel free to do so at this time.
And also if you haven't downloaded Patrick's bio
in the chat box, you might want to do that also now.
In the bio you'll find more information about Patrick
and some links that might be of interest to you.
So let's look at our question box
and see what we have coming forward.
Let's see, undock it, there we go.
"Since you study sailboats, are you also a sailor?
Do you like sailing a sailboat?"
-: I have been sailing quite a few times.
It definitely helps kind of understanding
the boats we study.
Last summer, I had the opportunity to sail for two weeks
on a tall ship named Lady Washington in Washington State.
And that was fantastic. Yeah, I loved it.
I would do it every summer if I could.
So yeah, I do sail on occasion and it definitely helps.
-: Okay, another question is,
"Do you know about how many bugeye boats were built total?"
-: There have been about 600 recorded.
I imagine that's actually a lot higher though,
'cause the vessel that predated bugeyes, the pungy,
I think there was about 1,000 of those,
and they were only used for a couple decades.
So at least 600 bugeyes, but probably more.
-: Okay.
Jessie, do you have a question that you'd like to ask?
-: I personally have several questions,
but let's start with how many crew members
would typically be on board
and about how long would they go out for?
-: I think the minimum that I've read
was about two people could handle a bugeye,
but I think it was anywhere from like around six or eight
would be the typical crew,
'cause you would have to have people on the sails,
steering and then actually loading an offloading the dredge
and things like that.
And the bugeyes would typically go out for just like a day.
They would go, it would depend on where they were,
but yeah, not so much longer voyages,
although some bugeye were actually used on longer trips
down to the Caribbean to get fruit.
So it kind of depended.
-: Okay.
Another question asked, "What sonar gear did you use
for the Centerboard Wreck site,
since it's only in three feet of water?"
They're wondering because they thought that sonar needed
to be in deeper water.
-: Yeah, it was a typical Klein, I forget which model,
but we were able to do it by kind of like floating it
and going real slow.
But yeah, most bigger sonar systems
you would want a lot more clearance.
But yeah, you can get pretty shallow with them
if you've got the right equipment.
-: Okay. Jessie?
-: Someone asked if you could or if you had
any more information about the African American crew
and whether or not they were also builders
or just crew members?
-: I'm not sure about the builders,
but yeah, most crews were African Americans
and most workers at the oyster facilities
were African Americans and women.
So both groups played a very significant role
in the oyster industry,
and there's a lot of photographs out there,
so there's definitely more research to be done
and I plan on adding that to my dissertation.
-: Okay. We'll have to have you back to talk about it.
-: Another question asked,
would bugeyes have also gone north from Baltimore
or did they just go south?
-: They definitely would've gone to other sounds as well.
I haven't really delved into that yet,
but I do know that as the Chesapeake Bay fishers
went searching for other sounds,
they did go up toward New York and Delaware, so yeah.
-: Okay.
And another question that I have is,
"Where were the bugeyes mostly constructed?
Were they constructed by individuals
or was there a ship building facility
that constructed them?"
-: There were a few, and it's mostly in Maryland.
A couple of bugeyes were built in Virginia,
but these are pretty rare.
But yeah, there's a few specific places in Maryland
that most of the bugeyes were built.
-: Okay. Jessie, do you have any questions?
-: Another question in the chat asked about buyboats
and if you had come across them in your research.
-: Yeah, so the buyboat were kind of their solution
before the bugeye became prominent.
All of these oyster boats that had the deeper hulls,
they would go out and they would dredge the deep waters,
and instead of just catching a bunch of oysters
and then sailing all the way back to port,
they would actually offload all of their oysters
onto these other boats
that would kind of buy all of the oysters
from them directly,
and then those buyboats would go back to the port,
so that they could just keep dredging all day.
-: Okay.
Are you contemplating a scale model of the remains
as has been done in the TAMU for in many years,
and/or a scale model of the reconstructed vessel
for your outboard profile?
-: Yeah, actually that's part of it.
So what I hope to do is record all the timbers,
reconstruct them all digitally as well.
So there'll be like three dimensional models and things.
And there is a model ship builder here
that works all in wood and it's beautiful and fantastic.
I definitely don't have the skill for that,
but instead we have the ability to or print out
the digital reconstructions on 3D printers
and kind of put them all back together.
So I hope to do something like that for the program.
-: Okay.
And someone asked, they're saying they're just curious,
what is the vessel represented
by the half model behind you with gunports?
-: Oh, this should be the Jefferson.
My advisor drew that, and he's a great artist.
-: Okay. -: Yeah.
-: Jessie, I don't see any more questions.
Are you seeing any more?
-: Not in the chat, but I would love to know more
about the artifacts that you found.
I know you showed a couple of pictures.
Were there any that were particularly surprising
or one that you liked better than another?
-: Good question. Yeah, there were quite a few.
And there were a few that I could not figure out
what they were, but probably just related
to like the rigging elements and stuff.
But I do think the dredge rake was the most indicative
and probably my favorite,
'cause it was one of the first we found
and it kind of identifies it as an oyster boat.
-: And Patrick, you said that you returned, you drew them
and then you returned them all to their original location
back in the water.
Were there any that you wanted to conserve
or that you think should be conserved in the future?
-: Not really.
I'd rather leave them all for the next person
who goes and looks at the site,
maybe they have better ways of conserving things.
So yeah, I think just leaving them in place
was the best option.
-: Okay. All right.
And one other question that I had is,
is the oyster industry in North Carolina flourishing?
Is it alive and well today or is it not?
-: I wouldn't say so.
I think it's still like a smaller local thing,
which was originally, which is probably better,
especially for the oyster beds.
But yeah, a lot of that has to do with the dredging
that occurred historically, but also a lot of diseases
that kind of wiped out the oyster population.
-: Right. Okay.
All right. Any other questions coming in?
-: We had a question come in asking you what you plan to do
after your PhD.
-: I'd like to be a professor one day.
That's kind of why you get your PhD in this field,
but those jobs are very rare, so I have no idea,
in the meantime still just trying to focus
on getting outta here.
-: Okay. And I think that's all the questions we have.
I can't see anything else.
There's a comment,
but I'll forward that on to you after the chat.
Oh, here comes one.
It says, "You mentioned that coastal erosion
was exposing wrecks.
Do you think that continual changes in climate
and sea levels will affect the work?"
-: Absolutely.
One of my friends from ECU is working on her dissertation
all about how erosion and hurricanes and weather factors
will affect shipwrecks in the long term.
So it's definitely something we should be studying.
-: Okay.
I don't see anything else.
That everybody, well. All right.
All right. Well we'll go on with
the rest of our obligatories
So if you... I'm sorry, Jessie, this is your slide.
-: So if you did send in a question
after we were finished answering them,
you can send additional ones to the email
listed on this slide.
You can also learn more about
Texas A&M'S nautical archeological program
at the URL listed above as well.
-: A video recording of the presentation will be available
on the Sanctuaries' webinar archives page.
It's found at that URL listed there at the top,
but it's a long one, so don't worry,
we're gonna send that information to you in an email.
In addition, the webinar will be archived
on Monitor National Marine Sanctuary's website,
and you'll just click on the multimedia section
in the toolbar to access the webinar box.
It usually takes us about 10 days to get the webinar posted
because we have to have it captioned first.
And so you'll find this webinar
and all the future webinars in that same section.
And don't worry, again, as I said,
all of this will be sent to you in an email.
We also want to highlight
some of the upcoming sanctuaries webinars.
So this evening at 6:00 PM Eastern time,
you can learn more about the new curriculum,
Exploring Ocean Mysteries from Dynamic Shores
to the Deep Sea,
learn how the lessons focus
on the seven ocean literacy principles, climate literacy,
and use the National Marine Sanctuary System
as an engaging backdrop that helps students understand
the importance for exploration, research,
indigenous cultures and more.
-: And tomorrow, tune in for Marissa Nuttall,
a research specialist
at Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
as she talks about understanding
where fish spend their time on the reef
and how that is critical part
to effective resource management.
Come and learn how a network of instruments
is being used to track fish around the sanctuary
and some of the interesting findings so far.
-: And our next Submerged North Carolina webinar
will be on March the sixth.
Join John Pentangelo, director of the Hampton Roads
Naval Museum in Norfolk, Virginia
for a discussion on the USS Cumberland,
which fought at the Battle of Hampton Roads
during the American Civil War.
Learn how on March 8th CSS Virginia
destroyed both the Cumberland and the Congress,
leading to the US Navy's worst defeat
since it began in 1775.
This discussion will focus on Cumberland's sinking,
the cruise response to the attack,
public memory of the ordeal,
and the recovery of artifacts from the wreck.
-: Another good way to learn about future webinars
is to follow us on social media.
I would love to see your comments
and your interaction there.
-: Alright, lastly, as you exit the webinar,
there is a short survey for formal and informal educators.
So if you are an educator, NOAA would really appreciate it
if you would take a minute or two to complete the survey.
Your answers will help NOAA develop future webinars
to meet your needs.
Your participation is voluntary
and your answers will be completely anonymous.
So once again, we want to thank Patrick
for a fabulous presentation, and thank you
for taking the time out of your day today to join us.
Have a wonderful day,
and this concludes the presentation for all.
Thanks and have a good day. Bye.