Skip to comments.Archaeologists dispute claim that undersea wreck is that of Blackbeard's ship
Posted on 04/06/2005 1:31:13 AM PDT by nickcarraway
GREENVILLE, N.C. - Three archaeologists are disputing the state's claim that an undersea wreck found near Beaufort is the flagship of the pirate Blackbeard.
In the first major challenge to the claim, two East Carolina University professors and the state of Michigan's underwater archaeologist said there is no conclusive evidence to justify identifying the wreckage as the Queen Anne's Revenge. They said state officials and researchers have studied the wreck with preconceived notions of its identity, and that pressure to capitalize on the Blackbeard connection caused alternative theories to be overlooked.
"It's an exciting shipwreck and an important shipwreck," said Wayne R. Lusardi, the Michigan researcher who previously worked on the Blackbeard project. "It just may not be the one everyone hopes it is."
Lusardi and ECU faculty members Bradley Rogers and Nathan Richards have disputed state claims in an article in the April edition of The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. Both sides say the article in the British publication is the first to dispute the identity of the wreckage, which was discovered in 1996.
Mark Wilde-Ramsing, manager of the state's Queen Anne's Revenge project, and Richard W. Lawrence, director of the state's underwater archaeology branch, said circumstantial evidence continues to accumulate that the wreckage is the Queen Anne's Revenge.
They said the three authors had based some conclusions on early research and misinterpreted some reports, though he acknowledged that the evidence is not conclusive.
"We have this working hypothesis that this is the Queen Anne's Revenge," Lawrence said, "and so far, the data supports that identification."
Thousands of artifacts have been retrieved since a private company, Intersal Inc., found the wreck just off Atlantic Beach in 1996. Phillip Masters, who runs Intersal, scoffed at the article, saying the authors had done no in-depth research.
"The article is rubbish," he said, adding that the state should be even more direct about the identity of the wreck and drop the phrase "believed to be" when referring to the Queen Anne's Revenge.
The pirate, whose real name was widely believed to be Edward Teach or Thatch, was said to have participated in the capture of more than 50 vessels. Historical accounts said he intentionally sank the ship near Beaufort in June 1718 to break up his company of 300 to 400 men.
He was tracked down at Ocracoke Inlet by volunteers from the Royal Navy and killed in a battle on Nov. 22, 1718.
Seems like a few minutes with "search-and-replace" and the question of hypotheses and preconceived notions could be applied to a lot of evolution's "missing links" ....
In case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of crevo threads on which to debate such nonsense. It seems odd to me that you feel the need to hijack a totally unrelated shipwreck thread for that purpose..
Seldom have I seen any statement that would serve the purpose I mentioned. I didn't hijack the thread, I boarded it. Here's a doubloon for your thoughts, Mate.
Now, we return to our regularly scheduled salvage saga.....
Thanks for the ping!
The French pirate: Apres moi, le deluge!
Note: this topic is from 4/06/2005. Thanks nickcarraway.