Heritage Cases

The Summer Palace in China – also known as Yuanmingyuan- was built during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Described by an English officer in one of his letters as a "masterpiece", a "dazzling cavern of human fantasy with the face of a temple and palace", the Summer Palace was a grand complex of buildings and gardens that served as the residence and governmental nerve center for emperors of the Qing Dynasty. Most significantly, the Summer Palace held China’s most beautiful and culturally meaningful works of art. During 1860, two armies of robbers (French and British) attacked the Emperor’s Summer Palace, looting, devastating, destroying, burning, and leaving the scene of the crime with many bags full of treasures. Before leaving, in an act of revenge, the Eighth Earl of Elgin, ordered the French army, to set the palace on fire. The Chinese government estimates that the French and British jointly stole about 1.5 million items. After the Second Opium War in 1860, the British ship, Miles Barton, of 1000ton burden was chartered as a transport ship to bring troops back home from Hong Kong. On 8 February 1861, with a dark new moon and slightly after low spring tide (around midnight), she struck a reef off Hope Point, somewhat to the west of Ryspunt – today called the Miles Barton Reef. Sadly, it was reported that, lost with the ship, was valuable and culturally prized items forcefully removed from the Chinese emperor's summer Palace and distributed between French and British. Evidence that the Miles Barton was carrying part of the loot is found in the note in newspaper The Cumberland Pacquet of April 9, 1861, which states “the officers and men had a great quantity of Chinese curiosities from the Emperor’s summer palace, but all has been lost with the baggage.” Our primary motivation is to find and return culturally valuable, priceless artifacts that are believed to have been on board the Miles Barton when it was lost more than a century and a half ago and return those artifacts to their rightful owners, the people of China. In so doing, we believe we can begin to right the wrong that occurred in 1860. From the archaeological research perspective, we have a group of questions and considerations we would like to answer and address during this intervention. RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR MILES BARTON (1861) 1. The plundered items from the CHINESE EMPERORS’S SUMMER PALACE are culturally dear to China and its people. 2. Find, identify and establish the size of the site and the extent of the archaeological context. 3. Make a pre-disturbance site plan. 4. Establish, with very little site disturbance, if artefacts from the Summer Palace are present. 5. The level of in-situ preservation that one can expect. 6. In what condition the artefacts are. 7. The possible need for test excavation. Due to the historical and cultural relevance of this wreck and its story, also a first-class international TV series of documentaries lead by actor Kevin Costner, known as well for his activism in protecting the marine environment, is planned. This TV show (a documentary series) will have as its objective to entertain and educate the general audience about the importance of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) and its fragility. The philosophy of the show, including Kevin Costner and Alex Mirabal, is in compliance with Article 2, point 10 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage that states that “Responsible non-intrusive access to observe or document in situ underwater cultural heritage shall be encouraged to create public awareness, appreciation, and protection of the heritage except where such access is incompatible with its protection and management.” Between 1984 and 2004, a Maritime Cultural History and Archaeology Resource Study was done on a predefined coastal area (Cape Agulhas). The aim of this study was to find and record all ship remains in the area as a resource for further maritime history or archaeology research. This Cultural History and Archaeology Resource Study covered the area of the Agulhas lighthouse with a focal height of 31 meters and a light coverage of 30 nautical miles (56km on either side – West and East). The resource involves well over 130 shipwrecks. This pre-disturbance survey will also serve as continuation of that study and add more significant data and undiscovered shipwrecks to this resource. Previous research. In 1986, during the already mentioned resource study, a businessman and archaeology student (University of Cape Town) Tubby Gerieke discussed the Miles Barton with J Herbert. Gericke had just donated a quarter of a million Rand to UCT to bring a Dutch marine archaeologist out to SA. His action was one of the first attempts in the country to assist with educating divers in protecting our maritime underwater cultural heritage (MUCH). Gericke already had sizable amount of research information, which has been significantly expanded since. The initial sources of information scrutinised was the Colonial Office records (National Cape archives) in Cape Town. Next to be worked through was the SA National Libraries (Cape Town) collection of relevant newspapers. Months were spent breezing through the UK Newspapers (Guildhall; British Library). Next utilised was the 1870 Lighthouse Report, Van Breda's legendary family diary, recorded interviews of local fishermen in 1871 and personal interviews with well-known elderly Overberg legendary locals. From the information found in the above sources, the Klippestrand stood out as the place where the tragedy occurred. However, this name (Klippestrand) was unknown to most in the 1980s. After further research, Herbert established that the area was first called Melkbosstrand (also unknown to most). Eventually, the modern name was established as Ryspunt. It is said that Ryspunt was because given as almost all the shipwrecks stranded there were transporting rice (rys in Afrikaans) as cargo. The next step was to establish what ships stranded at Melkbosstrand, Klippestrand or Ryspunt. The historical record showed that no less than six shipwrecks met their doom on this section of coastline: Miles Barton [Agulhas Map #54] Queen of the Thames [Agulhas Map #68] Marie Elise [Agulhas Map #82] Wigtonchire [Agulhas Map #94] Greystoke Castle [Agulhas Map #102] SS Clan Macgregor [Agulhas Map #103] The bulk of these shipwrecks were iron where only the Miles Barton and presumably the Marie Elise were wooden. The former will have the oldest British design anchors in this group, with the latter anchors of French design. Several references to possible identification pointers were discovered. The charted Miles Barton reef lying 2km out to sea was first to stand out. "Lying 1/2 a mile west of the Queen of the Thames" was mentioned by an interviewee. Another referred to the Miles Barton being lost 800 yards to the west of the Queen. A lovely drawing (circa 1871) illustrates the Queen of the Thames lying 800m offshore. Some 900m or so to the west, some wooden remains of the Miles Barton are visible. METHODOLOGY FOR PRE-DISTURBANCE SURVEY. Planned survey is based on a high probability area indicated by historic documents, local information, previous field research or an analysis of marine hazards and an outline of the reefs. Once a site with cultural material is discovered the surveyor proceeds to map and record. A first pre-disturbance survey plays an important role in planning the test excavation if necessary. It defines the area of the site, type of seabed, depth of the overburden, extent of archaeological material, and its nature. Our team will carry out survey by two methods: remote sensing survey (geophysical survey) and ground truthing (visual inspection by diving). Remote sensing survey will be done by means of a magnetometer and a side scan sonar. Proton magnetometer survey methodology. For methodological purposes, the area of study will be divided in quadrants of 500 x 500m that are possible to cover in a working day (with a proton magnetometer), named SA1, SA2, etc. The magnetometer will be towed in parallel lines (tracks) separated from one another at 0.007 of a minute (lane spacing of approximately 13m), ensuring that no major ferrous object on the seabed could pass unnoticed. The number of tracks needed to completely cover one quadrant is approximately 38. Each track slightly overlapped the adjacent quadrants to the east and west in order to ensure that no gaps are left between them. Counting on the 40m overlapping to each adjacent quadrant, the length of each track totals approximately 580m. Our magnetometer will be set up to get 1 sample of the magnetic field of the Earth every 2 seconds, and to guarantee at least 1 sample every 3m of the seabed, the survey speed to be adopted will be of a maximum of 2.5 knots (1.3 m/s). Where there are materials that contain iron (such as cables, pipelines, different types of rocks, small artifacts like nails or big items like a steel ship) the earth’s field distorts around the object and the proton magnetometer sees this distortion as an increase or decrease in earth’s field intensity. The sensitivity of the proton magnetometer allows it to detect small targets at quite large distances. For localized objects, the magnetometer can sense anomalies of 1 ton (1000 kg) of iron or steel at 30m or more, 100 kg at 15m and 15 kg at 10m or more depending on the background magnetic noise level of the earth. Survey design is crucial in generating a data set that gives you the answers you want. In general, the height of the magnetometer above the sea floor must be controlled to enable detection of the survey objective. For a quick guidance to calculate the mass of the object that will produce the anomaly, depending on the distance to the towfish and the magnetic response, we will use a custom-tailored formula that have proven useful in previous projects: T = (45 x m) r3 Where T is the magnetic deviation in Nanotesla (Nt), m is the mass of the object in Kg and r is the distance from the object to the magnetometer sensor. Due to the nature of the seabed in the area (sand and loose boulders) this formula will help a great deal in the analysis of the magnetic hits without having to do sample excavations in large areas. Side Scan Sonar survey methodology. As a complementary tool for the planned remote sensing survey, we will use a side scan sonar. Basically, the survey methodology to be used with the side scan sonar is that of the magnetometer. The survey quadrants will be prepared with the same dimensions and the system of parallel tracks will be also adopted. The main difference between both systems is the lane spacing, which in this case will be 0.22 of a minute (40 m), allowing for a much larger coverage than the magnetometer. The side scan sonar will be set to 675 kHz for coverage of 50m on either side and the sensor will be fixed to the hull of the survey boat. Using these settings, we will manage to survey 100m wide strips of the seabed with a “blind” gap of just 2 to 3m under the boat. The survey speed planned is between 2.5 and 3.5 Kts. The side scan sonar detects features on the seabed regardless of their origin, showing them as shadows on the screen with different lengths and densities according to the height of the object above the seafloor. All interesting features observed during the side scan sonar survey will be plotted on our electronic charts and later inspected by divers and/or double checked by magnetometer survey. The combination of a side scan sonar shape and a magnetic response would immediately identify a target as important due to the possibility of it being a manmade object. Visual inspection. If an archaeological site is discovered by any of the methods listed above, we will proceed to mapping it and recording for better understanding and evaluation using the following procedures. It is important to refer to the pre-disturbance survey. The pre-disturbance survey plays an important role in planning a possible test excavation. This non-intrusive survey defines the area of the site, the type of seabed, the depth of the overburden, the extent of the archaeological material, and its nature. The team will plot every visible object belonging to the shipwreck as well as conspicuous natural marine features (for instance big coral heads or gullies) as reference points. All visible objects are numbered (e.g. cannons like G1, G2, etc and anchors as A1, A2…) measured individually and in relation to each other. The methods to take these measurements may vary drastically depending on the condition of the sea in the area, the nature of the seabed and the characteristics of the objects to be recorded. For wrecks sites in fairly flat seabed, without big coral heads between the objects and with short distances between them the triangulation method is used. Using this method, the objects are measured against at least 3 datum points referenced to the same point in the object. That will “lock” the different objects between them in only one possible position and then to the “zero” point which is already related to the geodesic network in the area by GPS or another instrument as the theodolite. On sites where the difference of depth is important, variables must be introduced in the measurement in order to get 3D information for the site plan and avoid the error produced by the apparent position of the artefacts. All measurements are introduced in vector software to make a plan of the site on 1:100 scale, followed by interpretation and understanding of scattering patterns, extension of the area and nucleus of heavy objects. Team and roles - Alex Mirabal (Archaeologist, Diver) - Edwin James Herbert (Researcher) - Phillip de Bruyn (Surveyor, Magnetometer Operator, Technician, Diver) - Jaco Kruger (Diver)