Discovery Draws Attention to ECU, USS Monitor
Interview with Gordon Watts, co-director for Maritime History and Underwater Research regarding the USS Monitor. This and other articles may be found in the University Archives.
Citation for this article is: Threewitts, George A. "Discovery Draws Attention to ECU," ECU Report, Volume 16, No. 1, January 1984.
For five consecutive days last August [1983] an underwater survey and recovery operation led by ECU underwater archaeologist Gordon Watts captured international attention and may have laid the groundwork for future projects that could bring ECU national attention and fame. Watts, an ECU graduate and assistant professor of history and co-director of the program in Maritime History and Underwater Research, led the archaeological team that recovered the anchor from the famous Civil War ironclad "Monitor." The vessel sank during a storm off the North Carolina coast in 1862 a few months after its historic battle against the Confederate ironclad "Virginia" ("Merrimack") at Hampton Roads.
In the 1983 expedition to the "Monitor" site, Watts, a congenial, soft spoken southerner whose speech has been compared by some interviewers to that of film star Dennis Weaver (star of TV series "McCloud" and as Chester on "Gunsmoke"), found himself quoted in the New York Times , the Washington Post and on national television and radio.In this interview for ECU Report he reflects on that national attention and discusses future projects that could be equally as exciting.
In planning the expedition, did you anticipate it would receive a great amount of national attention?
Yes, because I had been out there on three or four previous expeditions.In 1979 we had more national attention to what we were doing, but it was spread out over a period of thirty days so it was less hectic at times.I think one of the things that created much of the interest was the trouble we had with the elements. There was an air of uncertainty about whether we would be able to accomplish our objectives and I think a lot of people (media) I talked to were out there to observe the unfolding drama, if you will, of us trying to contend with the sea state, wind conditions and visibility.
The thing that may have gotten the nation's attention at first was the difficulty you had in finding wreck site.What happened?
We've been going out there now for ten years and with the Loran coordinates for the site, finding it is very matter-of-fact. No one anticipated any problems.We found that the Loran chain had been changed in that area so we had to replot the coordinates to find something the size of the Monitor you had to be right on top of the target to be able to pick it up with the type of sonar we were using.The target we picked up initially and thought to be the "Monitor" proved to be a rock outcrop.
Why was ECU chosen to conduct this research?
I think the biggest reason is the expertise that exists on this campus relative to maritime history and underwater archaeology and our willingness to work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and cooperate in a research project like this.
Are there other campuses with programs similar to ours?
There is one other program of this particular type that exists at Texas A&M with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, but their emphasis is much more toward classical shipwreck archaeology in the Mediterranean and in this hemisphere primarily in the West Indies.
How was the ECU program established?
When I was working for the Division of Archives and History, I contacted Dr. William Still (Professor of History) to see if East Carolina was insterested in developing a cooperative program with Archives and History in sponsoring a summer field school to give students a chance to learn something about underwater archaeology.The association developed from 1979 to 1981 when Dr. Still realized the potential for a graduate program specifically designed to expand the field school concept to give people a very thorough grounding in historical research as well as underwater archaeological research and maritime history.I joined the faculty in 1981.
What do you see as the future for this program?
One of the things I think is very exciting is the National Trust for Historical Preservation has funded the construction of a shipwreck model which will be a section of a shipwreck molded in fiberglass.We will be able to use this is a pool to teach students the mechanics of doing underwater arcaheologcial recording.This is the first time anything like that has been attempted.It will serve as a model for teaching in a classroom environment rather than in an open water environment.
I think one of the most exciting things we will be working on is the search for Raleigh's Roanoke Island colony.We've been working now for about two years to generate the support and funding for this project and I am confident we are going to be able to do that.If we can find some physical evidence to substantiate our theory that the colony site is now submerged in Roanoke Sound rather than on Roanoke Island, then we are going to be in the driver's seat for one of the most exciting and sophisticated underwater excavations to take place in this hemisphere.
Do you think it will generate the same excitement and interest as the "Monitor?"
You can bet on it.We're talking about the first English settlement.People are well aware the settlers that stepped ashore at Plymouth Rock and the English that settled in Jamestown, but I think because of the mystery associated with the Lost Colony, it is going to generate tremendous interest.The first evidence we find that our theory is correct, it is going to explode.
What kind of evidence are you looking for in the waters of Roanoke Sound?
There are a number of things that could have survived the transitional process from a terrestrial environment to a water environment.The most obvious are the artifacts associated with the colony's existence which may mean the reamains of brick structures.We know they were in the process of manufacturing brick at the time on Roanoke Island.Glass and ceramics would have been brought with them from England, also iron.SOme of the historical sources relating to John White's return to the colony indicate many of the structures, a lot of equipment, weapons and so forth, that were brought over for use by the colonists were abandoned at the site and had already begun to be assimilated into the natural environment by vegetation.I am confident that the site contains artifacts that would have survived the past 400 years.
One would think the tides and currents of Roanoke Sound would have washed away the artifacts?
This is not the only site that has undergone that kind of transition between a terrestrial and underwater environment.A similar example would be the now submerged town called Woodstock that was established in the early 1730's in Beaufort County.There we know for a fact that artifacts as well as features of the townhave survived inundation.It has been firmly established that preservation is frequently better underwater than on land sites.There may be a tremendous amount of information about the colony that doesn't survive in the written record.
When will you start working at Roanoke Island?
We already have.We spent three days working out there last fall.What we were looking for was some evidence of some type of bottom topography to determine the best remote-sensing techniques to identify materials associated with the colony.
One of the most heartening discoveries has already been made by the National Park Service.They found the remains of what are two barrel wells.They found them in the Sound in the vicinity of the present reconstructed Fort Raleigh.The English traditionally lined their wells with oak barrels.The carbon 14 dating on both of them was contemporary with the Raleigh settlement.I think that is one indication that we may well be on the right track.
Has the public interest in the "Monitor" project affected your program in any way?
I think it has had a positive effect.It has given us a lot of recognition.Many people who didn't know we existed are now aware of the program in Maritime History and Underwater Research at ECU.
Are plans being discussed for future "Monitor" expeditions?
The 1983 expedition was the first step in a logical sequence of investigations we are hoping to conduct over the next four or five years designed to do three things.One is to find a way to stabilize the hull of the ship which is presently under a great amount of stress and could collapse down around the turret which supports it.The second objective is to remove and recover the turret for conservation and display.The third objective is to continue the archaeological and historical investigation of the ship to recover the information that it preserved.
That's pretty grandiose scheme, but I think it is something that is realistic.It is going to require a tremendous amount of support and a lot of work.
Are you looking for outside funding for some of the research you are doing?
Very definitely.In fact we already have an account set up for contributions that have come in literally unsolicited to support not only research on the Monitor but for work that is being done in the Underwater Archaeology program.We hope to produce an activities report that we can send out to anyone interested in our program.
One of the primary differences betweeen our program and the program at Texas A&M is that they have a number of people that give large amounts of money each year to their program.We're scrounging around continuously fo the funds to conduct research in the field.If we could identify three or four corporate sponsors who would entertain supporting the program, it would literally quadruple what we could do.
In summary how would you describe the attention ECU and your program received during the 1983 "Monitor" Expedition?
From our objectives it was anything but a raving success, but people became so fixed on the recovery of the anchor that it became not only symbolic of succeeding, it became the object of success.I think that has helped us considerably.
