Comparative Analysis of Monitor Class Vessels€¦ · · 2015-07-22Comparative Analysis of...
125
1 Comparative Analysis of Monitor Class Vessels A Sociocultural study of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus Kyle T. Lent Department of Archaeology Flinders University South Australia 1 June 2012
Transcript of Comparative Analysis of Monitor Class Vessels€¦ · · 2015-07-22Comparative Analysis of...
1
Comparative Analysis of Monitor Class
Vessels
A Sociocultural study of USS Monitor and HMVS
Cerberus
Kyle T. Lent
Department of Archaeology
Flinders University
South Australia
1 June 2012
2
Cover Page – Photograph of HMVS Cerberus looking northwest, taken from the
Black Rock Jetty, 21 May 2012.
3
Declaration of Candidate
I certify this thesis presents original research in the requirements for the Masters in Maritime
Archaeology Degree at Flinders University. To the best of my knowledge and belief this
thesis does not contain previously published or written material by another author, except
where referenced in the text. The personal interpretations in this thesis are the sole belief of
the author and not of another individual or group. This thesis was completed in 2012.
Kyle Thomas Lent
4
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his gratitude and acknowledge the following individuals and organizations, without their help and support this thesis would have not been completed.
I would like to thank Jennifer McKinnon, a supervisor whose diligence, support and dedication to students of Maritime Archaeology is a testament to the institution of Flinders University. I will be forever in debt to her assistance in the development of this project, and for seeing the project through to completion.
Additionally I would like to thank Jason Raupp, James Hunter III and Wendy Van Duivenvoorde for sharing their extensive knowledge of maritime archaeology.
Gratitude is extended to Peter Harvey and Heritage Victoria, along with John Rogers and the Friends of the Cerberus organization.
Furthermore, a big thanks goes to maritime archaeology students Alex Kilpa, Dennis Wilson, A. Safwan Jalil, and Danielle Wilkinson for their insight and supportive help throughout this learning process.
Finally, to the most beautiful family and friends a person could ask for. I hold a special place in my heart for you all.
5
Dedicated to
Justin Michael Culp
6
Table of Contents
Contents Declaration of Candidate ......................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13
Vessels ................................................................................................................................... 14
Significance And Use to Archaeology .................................................................................... 21
Chapter Outline ..................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter Two: Methodological Approach .............................................................................. 24
Development of a Research Project ....................................................................................... 24
Archaeological Investigations at Individual Sites ................................................................. 25
Research Development .......................................................................................................... 27
Historical and Archival Research .......................................................................................... 28
Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 31
Analytical Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Visual Site Inspection ............................................................................................................ 33
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 33
Chapter Three: Introduction .................................................................................................. 35
USS Monitor: Environmental, Technological and Cultural Factors ...................................... 35
HMVS Cerberus: Environmental, Technological and Cultural Factors ................................ 41
Archaeology of the Recent Past ............................................................................................. 47
Understanding Seaworthiness From An Archaeological Perspective.................................... 49
Chapter Four: On the History of Social and Economic Conditions that Affected and Shaped Naval Ship Construction During the Nineteenth Century ..................................................... 50
Towards Shaping Naval Construction ................................................................................... 51
Economic Conditions ............................................................................................................ 52
Social Conditions ................................................................................................................... 54
With Regard to Raw Materials and Techniques Available for Construction ........................ 55
Wood ..................................................................................................................................... 60
Cultural Considerations: Intended Use .................................................................................. 61
USS Monitor ........................................................................................................................... 62
HMVS Cerberus ...................................................................................................................... 64
7
Port Phillip Bay ....................................................................................................................... 65
Part II: Direct Comparison of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus: ...................................... 68
Naval Architects .................................................................................................................... 68
Principle Features .................................................................................................................. 69
Hull Type ............................................................................................................................... 69
Armour .................................................................................................................................. 75
Bottom-Based Construction .................................................................................................. 78
Double Bottom Construction ................................................................................................. 79
Keel ........................................................................................................................................ 80
Freeboard ............................................................................................................................... 81
Fore and Aft End Construction and Arrangement ................................................................. 83
Propulsion .............................................................................................................................. 85
Superstructure ........................................................................................................................ 88
Breastwork Principle .............................................................................................................. 89
Turret(s) ................................................................................................................................. 92
Additional Considerations ..................................................................................................... 95
Bulkheads .............................................................................................................................. 95
Riveting ................................................................................................................................. 96
Decking .................................................................................................................................. 96
Chapter Five: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 98
On the Social and Economic Conditions that Affected and Shaped Naval Ship Construction During the Nineteenth Century .............................................................................................. 98
With Regards to Materials Available During the Industrial Era Arms Race ....................... 100
Measuring the Degree of Similarity and Differentiation Between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus .............................................................................................................................. 102
Addressing Seaworthiness and How Affective These Vessels Were as Ships of War ........ 104
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 106
8
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart #11555 showing the location of USS Monitor. Watts 1979: 9
Figure 1.2. Photomosaic of the remains of USS Monitor, April 1974. Image Courtesy Naval History and Heritage Command.
Figure 1.3. Arial view of Half Moon Bay Showing Location of HMVS Cerberus and Black Rock Yacht Club. http://maps.google.com.au/, accessed 15 November 2011.
Figure 1.4. Half Moon Bay, Victoria, Australia. Location of Scuttled Breakwater HMVS Cerberus. http://www.cerberus.com.au/vicmap.jpg, accessed 9 January 2012
Figure 2.1. Site plan of USS Monitor (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/pgmonitor/present/wreck_plan1_300.jpg) accessed 10 January 2012.
Figure 2.2. Proposed in-situ stabilization of HMVS Cerberus. GHD 2002: 3.
Figure 2.3. A digitized copy of E.J. Reed’s “Our Iron-Clad Ships” 1869. Cornell University Library, accessed 9 November 2011.
Figure 2.4. Friends of the Cerberus, Inc. website homepage (http://www.cerberus.com.au)
Figure 2.5. Kyle Lent visually inspecting HMVS Cerberus. Photo courtesy of Flinders University, taken by Katie Lent May 2012.
Figure 3.1: Representation of the seafloor properties at USS Monitor wreck site Sheridan 1979: 260.
Figure 3.2. Fish species on USS Monitor. Sheridan 1979: 262.
Figure 3.3. View of scour around the bow of USS Monitor, NOAA. (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/pgUSS Monitor/present/now_8.htmL) accessed 10 May 2012.
Figure 3.4. Photomosaic of the USS Monitor, showing its turret on the sea bed. Courtesy NOAA, accessed 14 April 2012.
Figure 3.5. 2002 expedition recovering USS Monitor turret, NOAA. (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/oceans/oceanex/turret.jpg) accessed 10 May 2012.
Figure 3.6. HMVS Cerberus soon after arrival to Melbourne, 1874. (http://www.cerberus.com.au/AWM_300036.jpg). Accessed 4 March 2012
9
Figure 3.7. HMVS Cerberus Warning Sign. Image Courtesy Flinders University, taken by Kyle Lent
Figure 3.7. Marine fouling on HMVS Cerberus. Heritage Victoria: S117). http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritage_victoria/4614851428/sizes/l/in/set-72157624077429658/.
Figure 3.8. Section No.3 Bulkhead recorded during A.B. Colquhoun’s survey of HMVS Cerberus, post collapse. Colquhoun 1995.
Figure 3.9. Aerial view of HMVS Cerberus, showing location of gun barrels in-situ treatment Seyne & MacLeod 2011: 72.
Figure 3.10. Peter Taylor preparing to lower oxygen meter over HMVS Cerberus. Des Williams. AIMA Newsletter 2010: 12.
Figure 3.11. Richard Stanley Veale and Grandson on HMVS Cerberus, 1971. Note Graffiti on aft turret. Photo courtesy Richard Veale. http://www.cerberus.com.au/veale_breastwork_deck.jpg, accessed 21 February 2012.
Figure 3.12. HMVS Cerberus graffiti underwater. Heritage Victoria: S117. http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritage_victoria/4614815376/sizes/l/in/set-72157624077429658/. Accessed 2 March 2012.
Figure 4.1. World Map, portraying voyage of HMVS Cerberus. Note black points along the red line highlighting a rough estimate to location of Coal Stations
Figure 4.2. Major Ironworking regions and Coal sources in the north-eastern USA during the 1860s, based on information from Gordon 2001, Tarbuck and Lutgens 1987 in Boesenberg 2006: 628.
Figure 4.3. The USS Monitor hull sample analysed in the petrological study Sheridan 2004: 615.
Figure 4.4. Hampton Roads, Virginia showing the USS Monitor/CSS Virginia Engagement Site.
Figure 4.5. Nautical Chart showing depths off Sewell’s Point. NOAA. (http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12245.shtml) accessed 10 May 2012.
Figure 4.6. Points of Interest in the Port Phillip Bay vicinity. Duncan 2006: 41.
Figure 4.7. The slim entrance to Port Phillip Bay, known as the “Rip”. Nicholls 2001: 8.
Figure 4.8. The current state of the wreck of Minah in Rhyll, Western Port (Left), and Side Scan Sonar imagery of the wreck (right), one of the two vessels that towed HMVS Cerberus to its final resting place as a scuttled breakwater.
Figure 4.9. Transverse section of USS Monitor, showing hull design. Peterkin 1985: 128.
10
Figure 4.10. USS Monitor’s original builders’ half model, showing the inward sloping hull angle. Canney 1993: 30.
Figure 4.11. USS Monitor hull rendering. Watts 1985: 17.
Figure 4.12. HMVS Cerberus Deck Plan, courtesy Friends of HMVS Cerberus. (http://www.HMVS Cerberus.com.au/deck_plan.jpg), accessed 10 March 2012.
Figure 4.13. Construction of HMVS Cerberus hull in midships section. Nicholls 2001: 68.
Figure 4.14. Port Armour belt of USS Monitor, note extensive Damage. Watts 1985: 16.
Figure 4.15. Underwater image of the buoyant hull below armoured strake on port side, partially collapsed. Anderson 2002: 17.
Figure 4.16. HMVS Cerberus hull after 1993 Collapse. Anderson 2002: 17.
Figure 4.17. Construction details, showing HMVS Cerberus’ double bottom principle. Nicholls 2001: 66.
Figure 4.18. Cut away view of HMVS Cerberus’ Hold Deck. Double Bottom Principle can be viewed, surrounding the hull of the vessel. Nicholls 2001. Folio Print 2.
Figure 4.19. A small sketch included in Thomas F. Rowland’s letter to John A. Winslow, 12 October 1862, describing shape of the bottom plates to form the keel of the USS Monitor. Peterkin 1985: 173.
Figure 4.20. Deck Plan, Outboard Profile and Transverse section of Turret (Harpers Weekly, VI) March 29, 1862, p. 203. Peterkin 1985: 85.
Figure 4.21. Fore and Aft arrangement, USS Monitor (National Archives). Peterkin 1985: 105.
Figure 4.22. General Fore and Aft arrangement of HMVS Cerberus. http://www.HMVS Cerberus.com.au/plan_ship1.jpg, accessed 15 February 2012.
Figure 4.23. Etchings of the USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus in dry dock, giving an indication of the arrangement of the stern and screws. (http://www.cityofart.net/bship/USS Monitor.htm). Nicholls 2001, accessed 13 April 2012.
Figure 4.24. USS Monitor propeller drawing, dated 1861. Hand et al 2005: 2.
Figure 4.25. 3D Parasolid CAD model, USS Monitor Propeller. Hand et al 2005: 8.
Figure 4.26. Illustration of HMVS Cerberus propeller blades, Bob Nicholls private collection. Nicholls 2001: 81.
Figure 4.27. Breastwork Deck (Below). Nicholls 2001. Folio print 5.
11
Figure 4.28. Cut away side profile view of USS Monitor (top) and HMVS Cerberus (bottom). Note Breastwork feature, enclosing the two turrets of HMVS Cerberus. Image not to scale.
Figure 4.29. HMVS Cerberus, showing twin turrets. Image courtesy Flinders University.
Figure 4.30. HMVS Cerberus’ hull subdivision. Nicholls 2001: 67.
Figure 5.1.Diagram of Stable and unstable hull Conditions. Gould 2000: 77.
Figure 5.2. Theoretical stability of HMVS Cerberus, based on The Engineer April 1871. Nicholls 2001: 87.
12
List of Tables
Table 4.1. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus ship specification.
Table 4.2. Major Royal Dockyard workforces, 1890 (Friel 2003: 198).
Table 4.3. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus ship specification.
Table 4.4. Chine: USS Monitor v HMVS Cerberus.
Table 4.5. Deck configuration between vessels.
Table 4.6. Armour plating at various locations on each vessel.
Table 4.7. Comparative height of freeboard, in inches. Notice HMVS Cerberus Breastwork Deck extending 84”.
Table 4.8. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus Turret Comparison
13
Chapter One
“There never was a period when the art of naval warfare was more susceptible of change
than it is at this moment” –E.J. Reed: Chief Naval Constructor of HMVS Cerberus (1859:
142)
Introduction
This thesis investigates the sociocultural processes involved with ship construction
during similar technological and environmental conditions in naval warfare between Great
Britain and the United States during the nineteenth century. It will provide a comparative
analysis of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus to better understand social, economic, and
historical conditions involved in the development of naval vessel construction during the
post-industrial revolution, and how these conditions relate to the concepts of seaworthiness
and effectiveness.
USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus were chosen for the purposes of this study
because archaeological knowledge of monitor class and turreted vessels is limited, consisting
of only seven vessels worldwide. Of the seven vessels, HMVS Cerberus is the only twin
turreted, and only breastwork monitor, still in existence today (Anderson 2002). The
archaeological potential for such a study is great, but time is of the essence, as the immense
weight of the ironclad vessel is collapsing on itself (Colquhuon 1994, Macleod 1995,
MacLeod 1999, MacLeod 2011). USS Monitor was also chosen because a great deal of
archaeological and historical research has been conducted on this site and published widely
making it a useful comparative site.
14
Vessels
USS Monitor
On 4 July, 1861 as the United States Civil War was raging on, US Secretary Gideon
Welles requested congressional authorization for the construction of several ironclad ships in
response to the recent alteration of the Confederate vessel CSS Virginia (Watts 1979). CSS
Virginia, originally USS Merrimack, was a burned and scuttled US steam frigate that was
converted into an ironclad vessel by the Confederate. The vessel was seen as a threat to the
Union, and to the wooden fleet of the United States Navy blockading Hampton Roads (Still
1971). Thus, an immediate Union solution to combat the new technology needed to be
found.
Welles’ request was approved and an “Ironclad Board” was formed to evaluate plans
for US built ironclad warships. Three designs were selected for this experimental stage in
ship construction; the third being the steam-turreted battery presented by Swedish-American
engineer John Ericsson, constructed as USS Monitor.
USS Monitor has been widely considered one of the world’s most important ships in
terms of naval technology (McManamon et. al 2009: 195). It is unsurprising that the
relocation of the shipwreck in 1972 by Duke University’s R/V Eastward prompted
widespread interest, excitement and concern amongst the archaeological community. The
location of the wreck led to its eventual title as the US’ first National Marine Sanctuary,
designated on January 30, 1975. With the relocation came an immense amount of
responsibility. Protection of the vessel was awarded to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a United States agency of the Department of
15
Commerce (Watts 1979). The wreck lies approximately 16 nautical miles (25.8 km) south-
southeast of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina.
Figure 1.1. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart #11555 showing the location of USS Monitor
(Watts 1979: 9)
Thorough archaeological work has provided detailed site management plans
(Sheridan 1979, Watts 1979, Watts 1985), recorded items of interest recovered from the
wreck (Watts, 1985), produced three-dimensional images of the wreck (Stewart 1991), and
16
identified the effects of corrosion and other post-depositional processes (Arnold, et al., 1991:
11), amongst other things.
Figure 1.2. Photomosaic of the remains of USS Monitor, April 1974. Image Courtesy Naval
History and Heritage Command. Available at
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h96000/h96723.jpg, accessed 10 January
2012.
Features widely regarded as landmarks in the history of mechanized warfare (Gould
2000: 277) also have been the focus of archaeological and historical investigations (Roberts
1999, Sandler 1979). Of note, are engineering spaces and living quarters below the waterline
including forced-draft ventilation and flushing toilets (Mindell 1995: 247-48).
17
HMVS Cerberus
One hundred fifty metres off shore at the Black Rock Yacht Club, Half Moon Bay,
Victoria (Cahill 1983: 1), rests the scuttled breastwork monitor Her Majesty’s Victorian Ship
(HMVS) Cerberus. At once the flagship of the Victorian Navy (Anderson 2002: 8), the
ironclad defender now deteriorates resulting from a recent catastrophic hull collapse and
continuously increasing rates of corrosion (MacLeod 1996, 1999, 2010). The wreck has yet
to achieve an environmental equilibrium since a collapse of the lower hull in 1993 (Steyne &
MacLeod 2011: 78).
18
Figure 1.3. Arial view of Half Moon Bay Showing Location of HMVS Cerberus and Black
Rock Yacht Club. http://maps.google.com.au/, accessed 15 November 2011.
In 1866, the British Government ordered iron breastwork monitor HMVS Cerberus
to be built by British shipwright Palmer Shipbuilding and Iron Co.. This order stemmed from
a Victorian fear of foreign invasion and a need for protection of its people, land and water
amidst the uncertainties of the industrial revolution (Nicholls 2001:5). Launched December
1868 and outfitted in September 1970 (Cahill 1983: 4), the coastal defence vessel Cerberus
successfully completed a harrowing, incident-filled (Herd 1986: 11) ocean-going voyage
from Chatham Dockyard, England to Melbourne, Australia. Prior to this trip, alterations
were made to allow it to complete the journey including a build-up of temporary decks,
bulwarks and masts for additional support (Williamstown Chronicle 1870: 4).
Due to the vessel’s low freeboard, flat decks and immense weight of a central
superstructure containing two rotating turrets (Gould 2000: 277), the platform was widely
regarded as unseaworthy, although it was never intended to leave Port Phillip Bay upon
arrival to Australia (Anderson 2001: 4). This coupled with the contemporaneous disaster of
the sinking of the sailed turret ship HMS Captain created such an amount of criticism over
the vessel’s seaworthiness and stability that no more of the type were constructed (Fletcher
1910: 334).
The views of the lack of seaworthiness proved difficult in obtaining and maintaining
a crew for the transoceanic voyage from England to Australia via Suez Canal. In fact, some
voluntarily chose prison instead of sailing to Melbourne for fear of the vessel on the open
ocean (Herd 1986: 12). Although vulnerable to a similar fate as HMS Captain, Cerberus
never rolled more than 15 degrees during heavy weather (Parkes 1957: 168-69).
Despite the setbacks and downfalls, Cerberus arrived in Melbourne in 1871 and the
vessel’s temporary transport works were removed. Its masts were replaced with light poles
and the additional gunwale was removed (Gould 2000: 278). By the time it arrived over four
19
years had passed since Victorians “got the first intimation that [they] should have her for
[their] protection, and at last she lies at anchor in our waters, one of the most powerful
vessels in the world for harbour defence” (Argus, 10 April, 1871).
Cerberus never took to the open ocean again (Gould 2000: 278), and was never to
leave the shelter of Port Phillip Bay, eventually it was scuttled in Half Moon Bay, Victoria
(Nicholls 2000: 98). Whether the belief of invasion was just a perceived threat or the
appearance of the breastwork monitor alone was enough to protect the bay, the vessel
withstood the threat of foreign invasion.
Figure 1.4. Half Moon Bay, Victoria, Australia. Location of Scuttled Breakwater HMVS
Cerberus. http://www.cerberus.com.au/vicmap.jpg, accessed 9 January 2012.
This thesis will compare both the social and economic conditions that shaped the
creation of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus and the archaeological remains of each site
in order to address questions about the effectiveness and seaworthiness of these early war
20
ships. Archaeology has the potential to provide a better understanding of human behaviour
during this time, as well as provide more information about these early sea going and coastal
vessels.
Aims:
The following aims will be accomplished in this thesis:
- Examine the social and economic conditions that affected and shaped naval ship
construction during the nineteenth century.
- Examine the construction of both USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus, with regards to
materials, technology and design.
- Directly compare and contrast USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus to determine the
degree of similarity and differentiation produced under the social and technological
conditions of the time.
- Examine the concept of seaworthiness and how effective these vessels were as ships of
war.
21
Significance And Use to Archaeology
HMVS Cerberus possesses considerable historical and archaeological significance
as it represents an experimental stage in the design of the modern sea-going battleship, being
the first unrigged, steam-driven, British-built iron breastwork Monitor ever constructed
(Anderson 2002: 7). It was the first British warship designed and constructed to have low
freeboard and breastwork protection, as well as a central superstructure with fore and aft
centreline turrets. As the first of a class of seven coastal defence Monitor class vessels,
Cerberus represents a break from traditional British warship conventions. Thus the
construction of such a revolutionary type of naval vessel warrants further investigation.
The potential for maritime archaeology to address larger sociocultural processes
associated with ship construction and naval warfare has been demonstrated (Gould 1983,
1990, 2000; Delgado 1992). Gould reveals that material signatures associated with
shipwreck remains can be used to make cross-cultural generalizations (Gould 1983: 105-
106) about the society which built them. For the purposes of this thesis, the “comparative
archaeology of the Monitor and the Cerberus offers an opportunity to measure the degrees of
similarity and differentiation produced under parallel conditions of technological
development and intense competitive pressure” (Gould 2000: 281).
This thesis will also benefit maritime archaeology by not only helping to understand
how warships of this period were designed and outfitted to ever advancing war standards,
22
but also to understand the specific modifications implemented to better suit the needs of the
Australian Navy and the Australian coastline. Additionally, the results from this study can be
linked to larger cultural structures that influenced overall military strategy and tactics over
time (Geier et al 2011).
Chapter Outline
The framework of this thesis will be separated into five chapters, with the introduction
being Chapter One. Chapter Two will highlight the methodology involved in the study,
which includes qualitative research in a historical and archaeological compilation of primary
and secondary sources. The chapter will also address unobtrusive techniques for a site visual
inspection for the vessel. This chapter will describe the methods utilized while undertaking
the study.
Chapter Three provides a literature review of the abovementioned historical and
archaeological compilation of primary and secondary sources in the Australian contexts of
archaeological studies of both HMVS Cerberus and USS Monitor. This chapter will address
common issues involving monitor class vessels, and will explore various social and
economic aspects of the time period. A historical background of USS Monitor and HMVS
Cerberus, coupled with an archaeological investigation into the prior expeditions of each
vessel, will contribute to interpretation of each site and provide a transition into
understanding the effectiveness of these vessels as ships of war. Archaeological data relevant
to the construction of monitor class vessels will be reviewed to formulate a detailed
comparison of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus.
Chapter Four represents the analysis of this thesis and will be used to compliment the
literature review to address the overall aims of the thesis. Chapter Four will entail a
comparative analysis of the social and economic conditions that affected nineteenth century
ship construction, will examine features of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus, with regards
23
to materials, technology, and design, and will explore site specific features in the shaping of
seaworthiness on each vessel. The analysis will also serve to explore some of the gaps and
similarities between the archaeological findings, based on previous work conducted by
archaeologists in the U.S. and Australia, respectively. The chapter will include a brief
segment on the maritime landscape of Australia and America where these vessels were
intended to be used to briefly explore adaptation methods for each vessel. The chapter will
also include the results of the visual site inspection of HMVS Cerberus.
Chapter Five discusses the results of the above chapters and will address the research
aims to provide a more complete understanding of the degrees of similarity and
differentiation in naval ship construction. This chapter will explore the concept of
seaworthiness and how effective these vessels were as ships of war. This final chapter will
conclude the thesis by documenting the contribution of the thesis towards nineteenth
century naval warfare studies, and provide a brief description on future studies of ironclad
monitor type vessels.
24
Chapter Two
Methodological Approach
This chapter describes the methodologies employed to examine the social and
economic conditions that affected the construction of HMVS Cerberus relative to USS
Monitor. The chapter explores the process of historical andarchival research, comparative
research, and the analytical and communicative methods involved in making this case study
possible. The first section examines previously completed archaeological investigations at
each site. Following this, an in-depth detail of the methods used for collecting data to
explore the social and economic impacts affecting ship construction of monitor type vessels
will be discussed. It explains data collection methods, and provides a general outline for how
the analytical comparisons were produced. Finally, this chapter clarifies some of the
limitations involved with undertaking such a project.
Development of a Research Project
The research for this thesis builds on Dr. Richard Gould’s suggestions in
Archaeology and the Social History of Ships (2000: 281) that the “comparative archaeology
of the Monitor and the Cerberus offers an opportunity to measure the degrees of similarity
and differentiation produced under parallel conditions of technological development and
intense competitive pressure” (Gould 2000: 281). To address this statement, the author of
this thesis has chosen to employ an analysis between the two vessels mentioned in Gould’s
25
work. As a methodological approach, the analysis will combine historicaland archaeological
data to understand the similarity and differences in construction between each vessel.
The methodological approach to this project is based on a historical archaeological
framework. The framework for this thesis combines evidence from both archaeological and
historical sources to form a connected whole that creates a more balanced archaeological
explanation of the past. This thesis does not examine the entire process of the evolution of
ship design and construction as a whole, but does provide a view of design and construction
shifts during the modern arms race of the industrial revolution, as evidenced by the available
archaeological and historical data of the nineteenth century.
The nineteenth century was chosen due to the wealth of available sources
documenting numerous aspects of ship construction during the industrial revolution. One of
the most important effects of this time was the ability to produce large scale iron clad ships
of war.
Archaeological Investigations at Individual Sites
The majority of archaeological investigations available for study on the USS
Monitor site were produced by NOAA and the National Monitor Marine Sanctuary.
Thorough archaeological work has provided detailed site management plans (NOAA 1983,
Sheridan 1979, Watts 1979, Watts 1985) of the vessel since its relocation in 1975 (Figure
2.1). Investigations have recorded items of interest recovered from the wreck (Watts, 1985),
produced three-dimensional images of the wreck (Stewart 1991), and identified the effects of
corrosion and other post-depositional processes (Arnold, et al., 1991: 11). Since this initial
report, several archaeological studies have been conducted on USS Monitor (Arnold III et al,
1992, Broadwater 2012, Delgado 1988, NOAA 1982, 1998, 2006, Watts 1975) and
archaeological work is ongoing.
26
Figure 2.1. Site plan of USS Monitor
(http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/pgmonitor/present/wreck_plan1_300.jpg) accessed 10 January
2012.
On 26 December 1993 the hull of scuttled breakwater HMVS Cerberus collapsed in
a south-westerly storm (Anderson 2002). As a result, a number of scientific, (GHD 2000,
2002), archaeological, and stability assessment reports have been produced (Cahill et al
1983, City of Sandringham 1986, Colquhuon 1994, Effenberger 1995, MacLeod 1995, 1999,
MacLeod & Steyne 2011, Nicholls 2001). A 1995 draft conservation policy submitted by
Heritage Victoria stated that in situ conservation should be utilized for HMVS Cerberus, and
the vessel should be kept it in Half Moon Bay. Additionally, a 24-page conservation
management plan was prepared by Ross Anderson in 2002 under Heritage Victoria
(Anderson 2002). This report explored the scope of a conservation management plan for the
vessel, which had by then suffered two catastrophic collapses when the report was compiled.
27
Figure 2.2. Proposed in-situ stabilization of HMVS Cerberus (GHD 2002: 3).
Consecutive sets of measurements taken on HMVS Cerberus since 1994 have proved
increasing rates of corrosion (MacLeod & Steyne 2011). This indicates that the wreck has
yet to achieve an environmental equilibrium, although survey in 2010 (MacLeod & Steyne
2011) indicates that the integrity of Cerberus is much more structurally sound than
previously thought.
Research Development
While many studies in archaeology have successfully documented changes in ship
construction (Gould 2000, McCarthy 2001), David Conlin points out that with the exception
of (Steffy 1994: 85), “to date, relatively little formal discussion has emerged as to why these
changes might have occurred” (Conlin 1998:4). While the scientific and archaeological
resources available, at the time of this initial report, no thorough systematic assessment of
28
sociocultural comparisons between the two vessels exists. Granted, Gould’s work (Gould
2000) provides the groundwork for a detailed comparison to begin.
Historical and Archival Research
Research for this project involved the collection of several historical and
archaeological documents, of which were compiled from a diverse array of published and
unpublished sources. The majority of historical and archival research for this study occurred
at the Flinders University Library, Adelaide Australia.
These materials, which included primary and secondary sources, online data,
archives, databases, journals, newspapers books and images, were accessed from library
locations at Flinders University , the South Australian State Library and, in some occasions,
various university libraries from which books were accessed through inter-library loan. The
internet, an instrumental source of information, was frequently searched, as many of the
primary sources consulted for the report have since been digitized and are now easily
accessible online. Due to budget constraints for this project, research on the internet was
helpful because the majority of documents and archives referenced were for free of charge to
the author.
A wide variety of websites were accessed, ranging from personal interest sites to
museums, search engines, databases and e-journals such as JSTOR. Additional historical
research included the National Archives of Australia (NAA), and the use of TROVE, an
Australian repository of historical information. These were successful in locating and
providing many of the archaeological and historical documents needed for the thesis.
Additionally, the many archaeological journals and bulletins available at Flinders University
Library were consulted in addition to historical reports and archaeological reference books.
These include the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology Bulletin and the
29
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology
Conference.
It was considered that archival research would yield numerous primary sources, rich
with the technological details of ship construction and sociocultural aspects of shipbuilding
in the late nineteenth century. Contemporary newspaper articles would detail public opinion,
providing additional social dimensions. Early maps and photographs of each vessel and the
surrounding landscape would detail the physical landscape of the coastal shoreline, and
documentary analysis would explore some of the larger issues at stake with advancing
seaworthiness in these early battleships.
It quickly became apparent that due to the sheer volume of information readily
available at local libraries and worldwide on the internet, the formulation of a database was
essential. Duncan (2000:1) shows that:
“Maritime archaeologists, though largely historical particularist approaches have created databases of
maritime heritage items since the 1970s. It is these databases, and others like them, which, whether examined for
regional synthesis or national analyses, that have served as both the framework and dataset for nomothetic
analyses in Australian maritime archaeology.” (2000: 1)
For this study, a computerized recording system was created using the Windows 7
browser in which separate folders were formed to house various files and documents that
were accessible via the internet (Figure 2.3). This database provided a secured place for each
online source and document, resulting in a simplified, easy to access catalogue. The NAS
Guide to Principles and Practice shows, “the key advantage of entering information into a
computer is that… it is easier to interrogate and analyse the records quickly and effectively”
(Bowens 2009: 62). Each document was categorized based on the criteria of theme, subject,
and relativity and assorted into its respective folder.
30
Figure 2.3. A digitized copy of E.J. Reed’s “Our Iron-Clad Ships” (1869). (Cornell
University Library, accessed 9 November 2011).
For historical documentation of Cerberus, Mr. John Rogers of Friends of the
Cerberus, Inc., amassed an exceptional database of Cerberus information accessible online
at http://www.cerberus.com.au (Figure 2.4). The website includes a majority of documents
consulted for this thesis, including contemporary reports, diaries, engineers’ and captains’
notebooks, and a plethora of contemporary images from a detailed image library.
31
Figure 2.4. Friends of the Cerberus, Inc. website homepage (http://www.cerberus.com.au)
Historical Photography
Beneficial for this thesis, historical photographs are available from each ship that
portray various stages in the vessel’s use life. These images generally date from 1861
onward, and are consulted to complement the historical and archaeological research
conducted in this thesis. The majority of these images are available electronically and were
used to interpret each site to provide a more well-rounded comparison between the ships.
Notable features such as freeboard, hull structure and superstructure were visually assessed
in these photographs.
Literature Review
The above mentioned archaeological, historical, and archival research was
formulated to create a literature review to discern how archaeology can touch on greater
social and cultural influences during the industrial revolution. This literature review reports
32
on a wide variety of concepts associated with the context of historical archaeology and
ironclad shipwreck sites as a whole.
Analytical Methodology
The objective of this study can be best described as an analysis of the comparison of
the cultural remains of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. In order to properly analyse the
database to provide “comparative” data on USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus, several
analytical methods were used. First, a description of the environmental, technological and
social impacts was completed for each site. This analysis includes environmental factors
affecting each site, which were in turn used to compare the state of each shipwreck. Second,
a comparative analysis was made between the social and economic conditions of nineteenth
century Europe and United States to discuss socio-cultural conditions with regards to raw
materials and techniques available for ship construction. Third, an analysis of the cultural
landscape at the intended use area of each vessel was compared. Then, a direct comparison
was made between vessel features themselves to portray similarities and differences in ship
construction. To show this, tables and graphs were developed that compared and contrasted a
number of available historical and archaeological measurements of specific features within
each site. These measurements were acquired from a 1985 compilation of historical
drawings of the USS Monitor by Capt. Ernest W. Peterkin, USNR (Ret.) digitized in 2011
(Peterkin 1985), a periodical entitled Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Activities Report
(Vol. 3, No. 1), a copy of the Admiralty’s 1 July 1867 Specification for HMVS Cerberus,
available in Bob Nicholls’ (2001) work, The Three Headed Dog: Towards the First
Battleship, and other archaeological and historical sources.
This comparative approach involving tabular information is directly linked to
seaworthiness. For example, analysis of major structural components such as the hull
structure, superstructure, and propulsion is explored, which will in turn be used to discuss
things such as a ships overall stability.
33
Visual Site Inspection
Although stripped of a majority of features when scuttled in 1926, the wreck of
Cerberus warranted an archaeological site assessment by the author. A visual site inspection
of HMVS Cerberus was performed 21 May 2012 in Half Moon Bay, Victoria. This
inspection was made possible by a Research Student Maintenance grant obtained through
Flinders University, which covered travel costs from Adelaide to Melbourne. The survey
was non-intrusive and photography was performed from the shore of Half Moon Bay and the
nearby Black Rock Jetty. Still photography was used to record the wreck site and locations
of interest to compliment the thesis. This inspection incorporated the use of a Canon SD1200
IS digital Camera, represented in the Figure below.
Figure 2.5. Kyle Lent visually inspecting HMVS Cerberus. Photo courtesy of Flinders
University, taken by Katie Lent May 2012.
Limitations
Certain limitations arose during the study which shaped the overall aims for this
research project. Choosing a vessel with a large amount of historical documentation; HMVS
Cerberus, coupled with a comparison between an even more documented and historical
34
wreck, USS Monitor, proved challenging in the sense that contributing to new
archaeological issues and ideas would be difficult to convey.
This, coupled with the fact that the majority of the USS Monitor wreck is located
outside the realm of safe diving limits and is inaccessible makes it virtually impossible for
the maritime student of today to access the actual wreck site; although a majority of artefacts
are being housed and conserved at the Mariners Museum in Newport News, Virginia.
To add to this, increased corrosion rates and hull collapse of HMVS Cerberus make
it extremely dangerous to visit the site. Because of this danger, access to the wreck requires a
permit from Heritage Victoria, and no penetration of the site is allowed. Therefore, the
author was not permitted access the site of HMVS Cerberus to perform an archaeological
investigation. As a result, this thesis provides an introductory comparison between the two
vessels, with emphasis on the previous archaeological and historical examinations of each
ship.
35
Chapter Three
“In looking at general relationships between behaviour and material residues, the first thing
to consider is the total ecosystem in which this behaviour takes place” (Gould 1990: 48).
Introduction
The concept of a ship allows archaeologists to examine the relationship between
shipwreck sites and the historical record (McKee 1976, Oertling 1996, Mott 1997). It helps
to create a basis for comparing two separate vessels to induce similarities and differences in
aspects of ship construction. Such a culmination of history, archaeology and anthropology is
an “attempt to accommodate the best from history and social science in a cultural resources
management framework” (Lenihan et al., 1994). As Michael McCarthy (2000: 191)
summaries Patty Jo Watson, historical particularism and anthropologically based approaches
to maritime archaeology are “essential and both are present in everyone’s work” (1983:310).
USS Monitor: Environmental, Technological and Cultural Factors
Environmental Factors: The remains of USS Monitor lie in the Monitor National Marine
Sanctuary 16.1 miles south-southeast of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina in a
depth ranging between 218 and 230 Feet of Sea Water (FSW) (Searle 1978). Current
velocity and water temperatures are variable, with average bottom currents ranging from
0.02 knots to 1.5 knots, and annual temperature projections between 11 and 20 degrees
Celsius (Watts 1983). Visibility on site varies from 10 feet to more than 150 feet. The
sanctuary consists of a vertical column of water in the Atlantic Ocean extending from the
36
surface to the seabed one mile in diameter at 35°00'23" North and 75°24'32" West (NOAA
2012: 10). The wreck lies inverted on its turret on a flat sandy bottom (Watts 1985). In an
effort to demonstrate that existing technology may be possible to lift USS Monitor from the
sea floor, Robert E. Sheridan (1979) shows that the in vicinity of the wreckage the ocean
bottom is composed of sand, shell hash, and clay below the surface below in Figure 3.1.
Furthermore, bathymetric profiles of the area show a gradual sloping bottom towards the
southeast at less than seven feet per 1000 feet (NOAA 2012: 10).
Figure 3.1: Representation of the seafloor properties at USS Monitor wreck site (Sheridan
1979: 260).
A biological study performed by NOAA in 1990 identified a wide variety of
encrusting organisms including coral, sponges, sea squirts, sea anemones, hydroids,
barnacles, tube worms, mussels, and oysters (Dixon 1990). This demonstrates that USS
Monitor has become a productive reef habitat, with twenty-five species of fish observed ,
37
including red barbier, greater amberjack, black sea bass, scup, bank sea bass and vermilion
snapper (Dixon 1990) (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. Fish species on USS Monitor. (Sheridan 1979: 262).
USS Monitor sank on a hard seabed in an area of strong currents. This has prevented
the hull from becoming imbedded in a protective layer of sand and sediment (NOAA 2012:
12). Because of this, the vessel is susceptible to a variety of environmental hazards including
scour. The vessel’s present condition is a culmination of numerous factors, including
damage occurred during the initial sinking, corrosion of metals, and damage from human
activities.
38
Figure 3.3. View of scour around the bow of USS Monitor, NOAA.
(http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/pgUSS Monitor/present/now_8.htmL) accessed 10 May
2012.
Technological Factors: After the initial sinking, the hull of USS Monitor rested on the
turret, creating a partially buried inverted hull (Sheridan 2004). The lower hull collapsed
forward of the mid ships bulkhead, leaving the stern armour belt and the surrounding
structure badly deteriorated. This positioning of the hull resting on top of the turret created
severe stresses on the hull which led to a series of large scale expeditions resulting in the
stabilization of the hull of the ship. These expeditions allowed for the recovery of some of
the more significant components associated with the ship including the propeller, shaft
engine, and armoured gun turret (Broadwater 2006).
39
Figure 3.4. Photomosaic of the USS Monitor, showing its turret on the sea bed. Courtesy
NOAA, accessed 14 April 2012.
During 1993, NOAA conducted the Monitor Archaeological Research and Structural
Survey (MARSS) to record and document environmental processes and site formation on
site with photogrammetry and videography. Two years later, another survey was conducted
to stabilize the deteriorating hull of the vessel. From 1995 to 2002, major recovery of crucial
components of the vessel was undertaken. Evidence of rapid and accelerating deterioration
showed that recovery was warranted for a successful ‘long-range, comprehensive plan for
the management, stabilization, preservation, and recovery of artefacts and materials’ from
the USS Monitor to work correctly (source for quote).
In 2000, NOAA and the U.S. Navy installed mechanical shoring under elevated
portions of the sides of the wreck to supress corrosion rates. The following year saw steam
machinery and associated components removed from the wreck. In 2002, the vessels’ iconic
rotating gun turret was successfully brought to the surface for conservation (Figure 3.5).
40
Figure 3.5. 2002 expedition recovering USS Monitor turret, NOAA.
(http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/oceans/oceanex/turret.jpg) accessed 10 May 2012.
Further archaeological investigation has taken place on the site since the 2002
recovery of the turret. Work includes the study of wood components and additional surveys
on site (NOAA 2012: 13). In February 2012 a programmatic environmental assessment for
the draft revised management plan was written (NOAA 2012) to further understand the
environmental consequences of the large scale associations involved with the Monitor
National Marine Sanctuary program (MNMS). While extensive archaeological work has
been performed on the site, it will continue to be the centre of archaeological studies and
expeditions in the future.
Cultural Factors: There are a variety of cultural factors affecting the site of USS Monitor.
Although incomplete, the data from a 1979 archaeological survey indicated that the
destruction of the lower hull forward of the amidships bulkhead resembles patterning from
an explosion of considerable force. Since the site is located in between a well-charted
shipping lane, it is possible the damage may be a result of depth charge attacks during World
War II (NOAA 1983: 19). This may indicate the distribution of hull plates on the wreck site.
The impact of commercial and scientific diving is identified as a scrambling device on site.
Impacts of these archaeological studies are apparent, as fragments of deck plates have been
dislodged while working on site. Additional damage from human activities are noticed in the
41
presence of fishing tackle on site, indicating the area was once grounds for commercial and
leisure fishers.
HMVS Cerberus: Environmental, Technological and Cultural
Factors
Today, HMVS Cerberus sits in 15 feet of water (5m), listing starboard at 37°58.1’
South, 144° 0.4’ East inside an approximate 0.5 hectare protected zone. This zone extends a
distance of 25 metres from the longitudinal centreline of the vessel by 5 metres seaward
from the peak of the bow and stern (Anderson 2002: 5) (Figure ##).
Figure 3.7. HMVS Cerberus Warning Sign. Image Courtesy Flinders University
A December 1993 storm produced the collapse of HMVS Cerberus’ lower hull,
dropping the vessel some 8 to 10 feet along the waterline and making it impossible to re-
float (Tulley 2009: 131). HMVS Cerberus is an extensive marine habitat as the iron attracts
marine organisms, including encrusting mussels and barnacles (The Illustrated Australian News
May 18, 1874) (Figure 3.7). Above the waterline, the exposed features are susceptible to bird
droppings (Nicholls 2001: 116).
42
Figure 3.7. Marine fouling on HMVS Cerberus. Heritage Victoria: S117).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritage_victoria/4614851428/sizes/l/in/set-
72157624077429658/. Accessed 10 January 2012.
Technological Factors: HMVS Cerberus was sunk as a breakwater in 1926 and stripped of
many of its fittings. However, the hull, superstructure, armament and machinery remain. The
vessel sits upright in the bay at its normal waterline level. The immense weight of the turrets
resting on top the hull has caused severe stress to the vessel, leaving the armour belt and
surrounding features deteriorated. The seabed on the starboard side is littered with broken
frames, bits of hull plating and other displaced parts of the lower hull. The Maritime
Archaeology Association of Victoria (MAAV) conducted archaeology on HMVS Cerberus
from 1983 (Cahill, 1984, 1988, Charlesworth 1996). The vessel was also part of an historical
study by Foster (1989a: 19-21) entitled Defence and Victorian Shipwrecks, and was a part of
the background work undertaken by Gould, a basis for this thesis (2000). A 2002
conservation management plan was produced by Ross Anderson under the direction of
Heritage Victoria to assess the current state of the wreck and provide a plan for conservation
of the wreck (Heritage Victoria date). Additional work on site has produced a series of
corrosion measurements to examine the rate of deterioration of the vessel, undertaken by Ian
43
MacLeod (MacLeod 1996a, 1998). Of note in MacLeod’s work is the discovery of an
additional iron plate thickness (MacLeod 2006) that had not before been recorded. Studies
have shown that there is no longer a gap between the seabed and the wreck, that the armour
belt is resting on the seabed and the original hull structure has totally collapsed since 1997
(MacLeod 2011). Additionally, individual artefacts have been recovered, indicating the site
is not sterile (Anderson 2002). Marine engineers GHD Pty Ltd completed two reports in
2000 and 2003 on the possibility of preserving HMVS Cerberus, concluding that the site can
still be stabilized (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. Section No.3 Bulkhead recorded during A.B. Colquhoun’s survey of HMVS
Cerberus, post collapse. (Colquhoun 1995: NP).
44
In 2005, the same year HMVS Cerberus was included on the National Heritage List,
its four large guns were removed from the gun turrets and are currently being conserved in
situ via cathodic protection using sacrificial zinc anodes (MacLeod 1996a, 1996b, 1997,
1998, Steyne & MacLeod 2011) (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. Aerial view of HMVS Cerberus, showing location of gun barrels in-situ
treatment (Seyne & MacLeod 2011: 72).
Additional archaeological survey and sampling of the amour belt was performed by
Heritage Victoria (AIMA Newsletter 2010: 12), shown in (figure 3.10). Furthermore,
archaeologist Nathan Richards (2008) interpreted the site as part of a larger study on scuttled
vessels in Australia. Because the site is at risk of total collapse, further archaeological
stabilization and corrosion work is warranted in the following years.
45
Figure 3.10. Peter Taylor preparing to lower oxygen meter over HMVS Cerberus. Photo:
Des Williams (AIMA Newsletter 2010: 12).
Social Factors: The cultural re-use of HMVS Cerberus in a defence role against natural
forces as a breakwater shows a social impact the vessel has had on the bay and surrounding
areas, since initial scuttling in 1926. The 2002 report undertaken by Ross Anderson indicates
the site is prone to numerous cultural factors, including evidence of salvage, material
deposited on site, and movement of artefacts on the seabed (Anderson 2002). Furthermore,
the presence of graffiti found on HMVS Cerberus is a reminder to how readily accessible the
site was to the public since scuttling in 1926. See Figure’s 3.11 and 3.12 below.
46
Figure 3.11. Richard Stanley Veale and Grandson on HMVS Cerberus, 1971. Note Graffiti
on aft turret. Photo courtesy Richard Veale.
http://www.cerberus.com.au/veale_breastwork_deck.jpg, accessed 21 February 2012.
Figure 3.12. HMVS Cerberus graffiti underwater. (Heritage Victoria: S117).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritage_victoria/4614815376/sizes/l/in/set-
72157624077429658/. Accessed 2 March 2012.
47
Archaeology of the Recent Past
In the 1970s, Gordon Watts’ report on the state of USS Monitor (Watts 1975) in The
International Journal of Maritime Archaeology was described as an “important paper,
heralding the acceptance of iron and steamship studies in maritime archaeology” (McCarthy
2001: 68). The emergence of behavioural systems involved within shipwreck archaeology
(Bass 1983, Gould 1983, McCarthy 1983), showed that naval shipwrecks can in fact be
studied as social sites (Broadwater 1995, Gould 2000, McCarthy 2001). This confirmed that
“warships are monumental structures and can represent the product of the best construction
techniques, skills, and materials of their time” (Neyland 1998: 14). In Australia, Michael
McCarthy’s (2001) Iron and Steamship Archaeology: Success and Failure on the SS Xantho,
built on these movements to identify behavioural systems involved with ship construction.
With these important advances, there has been an increase in the development of thematic
studies in maritime sites as a whole (Nash 2004). These expanded developments have
explored abandoned watercraft (Richards 2002, 2008), performed comparative analysis
between shipwreck sites (Coleman 2004), and provided insights into battlefield archaeology
(Veyrat & L’Hour 1994, Bratten 1996, 2002, Rodgers et al 1998, Jeffery 2004).
Maritime archaeologists and corrosion scientists alike (Turgoose 1989, McCarthy
1986, 1989, 2000, MacLeod 1995, 1999) have come to understand the significance of these
ironclad wrecks. When assembled together (the iron wreck Xantho results, and the results
from USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus), it becomes evident that iron and steel wrecks are
rapidly deteriorating (Anderson 2002, McCarthy 1986, 2000, MacLeod 1995, 1999, Watts
1987).
Corrosion studies as archaeological evaluations are not new to archaeological
interpretation. David Conlin and Matthew Russell (2006) remind us that they were
conducted as early as 1969 on USS Tecumseh, where heavier corrosion rates in the rivet
48
region relative to wrought iron plates were investigated (Baker et al., 1969). Additional in
situ corrosion studies have been conducted on USS Arizona, (Lenihan 1989, Russel et al.,
2004).
Investigation of USS Monitor (Coger 1988, Watts 1985, Miller, Still, Peterkin 1981,
1981a, Gould 2000) and HMVS Cerberus (Anderson 2002, Cahill et al 1983, 1984,
MacLeod 2006, MacLeod 2011) have identified a multitude of engineering details but do not
readily compare this information with what is known from turreted monitors from historical
documentation and archival resources. This being said, archaeological understanding of
ironclad monitor class vessels worldwide is sparse, with the most notable results stemming
from the culmination of the USS Monitor research efforts. “Except for a few well-done
works, we have not accomplished a great deal more than produce site reports.
Comprehensive analytical reports and articles are lacking” (Neyland 1998: 16). Nathan
Richards suggests this may be due to the fact that as a whole, the iron shipwreck category
has gone relatively unnoticed in archaeology until recently (Richards 2008:4). Ross
Anderson demonstrates that the known resource of monitor class or turret vessels is limited,
consisting of seven vessels: HRMS Buffel (1868), HMVS Cerberus (1867), Huascar (1865),
Lajta (1871), USS Monitor (1862), HNLMS Schorpioen (1868), and Solve (1875). Of these,
Cerberus is the only breastwork monitor, and only twin turret monitor still in existence
today (Anderson 2002). From a historical archaeological perspective much remains as far as
documenting this industrial period of technological exploration and innovation, therefore,
the need for further historical archaeology is apparent.
In recent years, interest in comparative archaeology has been able to explore
similarity and differentiation during like conditions of technological change (Gould 2000,
McCarthy 1996, McCarthy 2001, Richards 2002). Maritime archaeology has informed on
social and cultural processes linked with risk taking and naval warfare (Gould 1983, 1990,
49
2000; Delgado 1992), and exposed universal tendencies in warfare such as “defensive
recycling” and “trend innovation” (Gould 1983: 140-41, 1990: 161).
One way of approaching the development of naval warfare is to view it through the
lens of evolution. David Conlin’s work: Ship Evolution, ship ‘ecology’, and the ‘Masked
Value Hypothesis’ (1998), demonstrates that there is no reason why maritime archaeologists
cannot use the “powerful conceptual repertoire” of evolution to explain archaeological data
affecting ship construction, design, and use. Traditionally, underwater archaeology has
linked one ship design to another via reliance on a generalized conception of evolution
(Conlin 1998: 3). Conlin asserts, “one design building and improving upon those which
proceeded and then occasionally branching into regional traditions” (1998).With regards to
ship construction, this idea of “evolution” has the potential to considerably aid in the
understanding of sociocultural societies during this period of rapid expansion.
Understanding Seaworthiness From An Archaeological Perspective
A ship’s overall design is the culmination of numerous technological, social and
economic aspects affecting the shape and structure of the vessel (Gillmer 1982: 225).
McGrail separates desirable ship qualities into two separate categories: performance and
safety (McGrail 1987: 99). Seaworthiness, structural strength, and stability rest in the safety
category, while speed and manoeuvrability make up the performance category. The desirable
vessel qualities produce a final result in vessel form that is directed toward the attainment of
a vessel’s certain perceived needs, i.e., manoeuvrability in coastal environments.
Understanding these perceived needs will allow for making generalizations about the
structure and integrity of a ship. This information will help deduce a variety of conclusions
and interpretations on the seaworthiness and stability of HMVS Cerberus.
50
Chapter Four
This chapter will present a comparative analysis of USS Monitor and HMVS
Cerberus. The first part of the chapter explores the history of social and economic conditions
that affected and shaped naval ship construction during the nineteenth century. This section
also documents the intended service of each vessel. The second part will provide a direct
historical and archaeological comparison between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. It
will examine construction features of both vessels with regards to materials, technology and
design.
On the History of Social and Economic Conditions that Affected and
Shaped Naval Ship Construction During the Nineteenth Century
Industrial Revolution
Before the industrial revolution, the transition from sail to steam can be traced to as
early as the 1820s, when primitive steam engines were being used to propel small ocean
going vessels (Nicholls 2001: 17). Although unreliable and uneconomical, these new
machines laid the foundation for what we know today as the modern battleship. Still, as long
as steam propulsion was unreliable and coal consumption was high, it was more economic to
sail.
“Since the industrial revolution, weapons systems have become embedded within
the political and bureaucratic structures of their respective industrial societies” (Gould 1983:
51
192). The relationship between technologically complex weapons systems and the complex
societies that produce them is what Kaldor refers to as the “world Military Order” (1982:
131-68). The period associated with ironclad ship construction was a time of industrial
expansion for both Europe and the United States. In Britain, exportation of coal, iron and
steel saw a boost in economic expenditures. For America, the Civil War brought an
expansion boom on a large economic scale. Therefore, the links between societies during the
Industrial Revolution played a pivotal role in shaping naval ship construction during the
nineteenth century.
Characterized by conflict, the time period created an arms race that in turn created
bigger, larger weapons systems and more powerful machinery. Ships were to become one of
the most important products of the Industrial Revolution, being some of the largest and most
intricate structures fabricated by humans (Nicholls 2001: 16). While attempting to protect
national interest at sea, warships were built to not only protect, but to make a political
statement as well (Neyland 1998: 14). The wreck of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus can
be interpreted as a material example of the effects of the Industrial revolution and the
modern arms race. The ideas and beliefs of the nations that produced them are visible in the
wrecks today. How these decisions reflect the military strategy and national views becomes
relevant to their research and interpretation.
Towards Shaping Naval Construction
Conceptual approaches to ship construction have been discussed (Gould 1983, 1990,
2000, McCarthy 2001, Richards 2006) and are significant for documenting cultural
behaviour. Traditionally, underwater archaeology has filled gaps in the material record by
linking one ship design to another in the form of a generalized conception of evolution
(Conlin 1998: 3). During periods of war, vessel forms often shift rapidly to meet new
demands. The adaption of new material “combined with environmental factors provides the
52
impetus for change in fundamental shipbuilding philosophies” (Campbell 2010: 68).
Additionally, as James Delgado points out, these expansive periods of technological change
from sail to steam are also periods of social change and transition (Delgado 1991).
With these innovative manufacturing processes and materials, the revolution
produced a new breed of naval architect, providing people with the ability to fabricate what
had once only been imagined. The revolution also created another feature, described by
Gould as “trend innovation” (Gould 1983: 191). As he shows, cost overruns in weapons
system procurement. Therefore, espionage and a form of “copycat imitation” of the weapons
system existed. These imitations, built by a competitor or potential adversary, were readily
present amidst the industrial revolution. The tendency to retain the trend of a favoured
weapons system outweighed the alternate option of “re-inventing the wheel” amongst
countries, as speed and time was essential (Gould 1983: 192). We see “trend innovation”,
and this copycat imitation apparent in the construction of monitor class vessels, where “the
relation of Ericsson’s ideas to the breastwork monitor’s which Sir Edward Reed brought out
some years after the Civil War was obvious enough” (Baxter 1933: 316).
Economic Conditions
The move from the wooden bulk warships of the British navy towards sea-going
ironclads began in 1861 (Fuller 2008: 28). The British built their ironclads slowly, evident
by the fact that it was almost four years from the time the Victorian government ordered
HMVS Cerberus to supplement the shore-based fortifications of Port Phillip Bay, to the time
of the vessel’s arrival in Australian waters.
The transition from wooden-hulled vessels to ironclad monitors was not easy
amongst some of the more traditional British members of society, and it was not until the
French abandoned the construction of wooden ships of the line in favour of seagoing
ironclads that the British followed. As it was seen by the adoption of ironclad vessels by
Austria, Italy, Spain and Russia, British forces knew that the idea of an encounter of
53
ironclads on the open sea was a possibility, and wooden cruisers would not be reliable in this
case.
The transition of the British fleet was carried out without great increase in the rate of
naval expenditure. The sums of supply for the British navy were £9,305,973 in 1857, and ten
years later, the cost did not reach £11,000,000 in 1867 (Baxter 1933: 321). This being in part
due to the fact that the use of wrought iron was at its peak when USS Monitor was built, but
was nearing its end by the time HMVS Cerberus was constructed. Steel would replace iron
as the preferred armouring material (Hoehling 1976), when in 1865, the Bessemer process
was introduced in the United States (Boesenberg 2006). This process allowed control of
steel’s carbon content to be reached with great precision, thus providing mass production of
inexpensive steel (Gordon 2001). Interestingly, HMVS Cerberus was contracted after the
advent of the Bessemer process, yet iron was retained for construction of the vessel.
The changes from sail to steam and wood to iron had two important economic
implications: one, a dependence on strategic locations of coaling facilities throughout the
world became essential in the quest of military domination, and two, the use of iron hulls
increased the econometric scale of dry docks and metalworking facilities throughout the
world.
One development associated with the rise of steam power was that of ‘coaling
stations’, across the globe that kept the British navy fuelled. These bases had an effect on the
route in which vessels travelled on the open water. The map (Figure 4.1) was created to
show the reliance on coal, and coaling stations, while HMVS Cerberus was en route to
Australia. The map is based on HMVS Cerberus’ unofficial log delivery book to Melbourne
(Breaks 1870). This coaling was carried out at “a snail’s pace, at the rate of a miserable 10
tons a day” (Nicholls 2001: 95).
54
Figure 4.1. World Map, portraying voyage of HMVS Cerberus. Note black points along the
red line highlighting a rough estimate to location of Coal Stations.
Social Conditions
It is important to make a distinction between the effects of the first fight between
ironclads on the policies of the foreign governments for the arms race, and the vast effects of
the dramatic struggle on popular opinion amidst the regions. As Baxter points out,
“observers were not lacking, however, to point out that the lessons of Hampton Roads had
been largely discounted by European naval constructors, and that great Britain had already
made good progress in the transformation of her fleet” (Baxter 1933: 312). General society
was concerned during this arms race, and widespread fears had British colonies stressing the
importance of protection.
Despite popular belief in Britain following the impact of ironclad success of the
American skirmish, the engagement had a lasting effect on the British in one aspect. Prior to
the battle, the Admiralty had expected to keep ironclads only for home service. The lessons
learned from the battle at Hampton Roads did not outweigh the conflicts in Europe, where
55
ships and forts were viewed as pieces in the game of international diplomacy (Fuller 2008:
141). Following the events of March 1862, it was realized that if other nations were to
follow the American example, Great Britain must be prepared to send its fleet of armoured
ships to all corners of the globe.
Welles believed the recent change in the construction of warships had rendered the
wooden ships of the European navies “nearly useless”. Because of this, the United States
could “start equal with the first powers of the world in a new race for the supremacy of the
Ocean” (Baxter 1933: 302). The British knew that bold technological challenges required
equally bold solutions, as the relationship between Great Britain and the United States was
tense during and immediately following the American Civil War. This being the case, the
First Lord of Britain had to belittle the actual “importance” of USS Monitor (Fuller 2008:
135). Even after the Civil War, when HMVS Cerberus was selected for the defence of
Melbourne, the British were quick to note that their “Breastwork” monitor was by large very
different from the American type introduced by Ericsson. But “it must be acknowledged that
the Americans have taught us a great deal of what we know about monitors, and we have
doubtless profited by both their successes and their failures, so that it might be supposed that
our vessels would in some respects be superior to their American predecessors” (The
Practical Mechanics Journal 1869: 1).
With Regard to Raw Materials and Techniques Available for
Construction
Among the factors involved with the design of a vessel include “raw materials, techniques
available for construction, skill of the builder, economic considerations such as time and
labour, and cultural factors – primarily intended use” (Conlin 1998: 3).
56
By 1866, the views in London had become more sympathetic to principles of
colonial self-sufficiency in local naval defence. The British saw the importance for a coastal
defence monitor not only from the perspective of the safety of the Victorian colony, but also
to ensure British own strategic incentive toward an ever longing international diplomacy.
This is a result of the knowledge that improved armaments would likely lead to an improved
economy for the Victorians. As a result, “the cost of the ship (HMVS Cerberus) [was] not to
exceed 125,000 pounds of which the colony will furnish 25,000 pounds… It is clearly
understood that this ship is maintained for the protection of the important British as well as
Colonial interests that require naval defence in the waters of the colony” (Adderley 1866).
The table below (Table 4.1) compares general specifications of each vessel in relation to the
US $275,000 and British £125,000 budget.
Table 4.1. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus ship specification
Feature of Ship USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Budget US $275,000 (1861) £125,000 (1866)
Overall Length 52.42 metres 68.6 metres
Beam 12.6 metres 13.7 metres
Draft 3.02 metres 5.02 metres
Displacement 987 Tons 3,344 tons
Hull & Armour Weight 1,255 Tons 2640 tons
Equipment Weight X 700 tons
Burden 776 Tons 2107 73/94 Tons
Vessels are built from a number of available materials, each with its advantages and
disadvantages. Two raw materials used in hull construction of monitor type vessels are iron
and timber. Advantages for iron include its availability and durability; disadvantages include
its weight and it is difficult to work with. For wood, the ease of crafting and lightweight was
advantageous, but it was susceptible to rot and fouling. A construction technique common to
both USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus is the use of both iron and wood.
57
The $275,000USD (equivalent to approximately $6 million in 2005) (Peterkin
1981a) allocated by the US government for the contract of USS Monitor was designated to
be a majority of wrought or cast iron, and needed to provide provisions for 100 persons for
90 days while carrying 2500 gallons of water in its tanks. Constructing a vessel of steel was
not possible due to large scale costs of manufacturing steel since the vessel was created
before the advent of the Bessemer process (Boesenberg 2006). The iron ore used for USS
Monitor probably came from the areas near manufacturing sites, mostly in the immediate
Troy region (Still 1988, Van Diver 1985, Gordon 2006). Because the planned timetable for
building USS Monitor was 100 days, waiting for materials to arrive from remote areas was
not an option, nor economically feasible.
Figure 4.2. Major Ironworking regions and Coal sources in the north-eastern USA during the 1860s,
based on information from (Gordon 2001, Tarbuck and Lutgens 1987 in Boesenberg 2006: 628).
58
A petrologic study of a wrought iron disc from the hull of USS Monitor (Boesenberg
2006) shows low-carbon, high-phosphorus ferrite with 4.8 vol% silicate slag, which includes
phosphoran olivine, glass, wustite and a silica polymorh. The sample, made at the height of
wrought iron manufacturing, is of “mediocre quality and has a mineralogy, petrology and
metallography that reflect the latter stages of puddling, rolling, annealing and 140 years of
corrosion” (Boesenberg 2006: 613) that indicates that Ericsson was most likely pressed for
time and needed to use materials readily available during his 100 days given to construct
USS Monitor.
Figure 4.3. The USS Monitor hull sample analysed in the petrological study (Sheridan 2004:
615).
The plate was originally located in the midships section and was originally 1.27cm
thick in 1862, but today, the thickness is only 3.9mm, over 60% of the mass having been
corroded over the past century (Childress 1978, Sheridan 1979, 2004, Boesenberg 2006).
Wrought iron usually contains about 2.5% vol slag (Boesenberg 2006). The slag
enhances the iron’s strength, ductility and durability (Rosenholtz 1930, Aston and Story
59
1952). The hull sample of USS Monitor provides a slag content that is nearly twice the
normal rate at 4.8 % vol (Boesenberg 2006). Boesenberg states that an explanation for this
could be that “in the rush to manufacture such a high quality of iron in 140 days, quality
control was sacrificed, resulting in a higher than normal proportion of slag remaining in the
metal” (2006: 622).
New iron construction techniques meant new machinery and the enlargement of
many docks to accommodate bigger ships. In 1855, the total world output of pig iron was
approximately 6,000,000 tons, more than half of which came from Great Britain (Abell,
1981: 147). Chatham Dockyard itself was enlarged to four times its original size between
1862 and 1885. The four main British yards alone employed over 20,000 people in 1890,
and in 1900 the total home dockyard force exceeded 32,000 (Friel 2003).
Table 4.2. Major Royal Dockyard workforces, 1890 (Friel 2003: 198).
Dockyard No. of Workers
Portsmouth 7,615
Chatham 5,670
Devonport & Keyham 5,206
Pembroke 2,092
Friel (2003) shows that Britain’s great supplies of iron ore and coal had enormous
advantages for the country in the industrial revolution. Mineral extraction and manufacturing
centres were not far removed from each other, reducing transportation costs to provide
cheaper rates than its competitors. This meant that due to the sheer size of the British
shipbuilding industry, the country could get iron at lower prices than its foreign rivals
(2003:227). This explains how a vessel of HMVS Cerberus’ class, weighing almost three
times as much as USS Monitor, could be produced on virtually the same budget. These
economic factors, coupled with the highly skilled British workforces who had nearly double
60
productivity rates of the Americans (Friel 2003: 228), is credit to the success of the British
shipbuilding industry, even amongst the transition from sail to steam.
HMVS Cerberus’ hull was made almost completely of iron, with the exception of
the steel vertical keel. Of which the most suitable iron came from Staffordshire and
Yorkshire (Nicholls 2001: 68). Terms such as “treble best” indicated the number of times
iron had been re-heated and rolled (Moy et al 2009: 2).
Interestingly, the USS Monitor hull sample analysed in a petrologic study provides a
slag content that is nearly twice the norm at 4.8% volume (Boesenberg 2006). Boesenberg
states that an explanation for this could be that “in the rush to manufacture such a high
quality of iron in 140 days, quality control was sacrificed, resulting in a higher than normal
proportion of slag remaining in the metal” (2006: 622). This shows that while such a
deadline was desired and met for USS Monitor, structural integrity may have been
sacrificed, whereas the British had time to roll “best best best” iron plates for HMVS
Cerberus’ hull, which was heated, hammered, heated, and repeated twice over (Moy et al
2009:2). Because British naval construction was not faced with a time ultimatum, it appears
that HMVS Cerberus’ overall quality of iron was more durable.
Wood
Another element considered is the selection of wood for each vessel. Timber is light,
easy to work with, but can be expensive. In search for the rugged white oak needed for USS
Monitor’s frame, the following excerpt is taken from an unpublished “Reminiscences of
Finch Hollow”, by Arthur Crocker, a descendant of what is now known as Johnson City,
N.Y.:
"Probably not three people in the town of Union know that the greater part of the
oak timber going into the construction of the USS Monitor (which fought the
Merrimac in Hampton Road) grew in this town, but such is the fact. James and
61
Simon Bigler were heavy lumber dealers, having yards at Newburg and New York,
and early in the Civil War they secured from the Government an unlimited order for
first class oak and ash lumber cut to certain sizes. Their mill at Oakdale had by 1860
very nearly used up all the available pine timber, but there was still such oak and ash
growing on the adjacent hills, and this contract with Uncle Sam enabled the Biglers
to buy most of it for any reasonable price which might be asked… Most of this oak
was used by the Government in building gun carriages -- the very best went to the
ship yards.” (Crocker N.D.)
British oak was the standard timber, as its weight per cubic foot is about one-ninth
that of iron and had a tensile strength of about one-fifth to that of iron. In this case, the
timber provided for a secure backing, while reducing the overall weight of the turrets and
hull of the vessel. Additionally, engineering journals and manuals of the 1860s described the
use of composite hull construction as the ideal way to overcome persistent fouling by marine
organisms on wrought iron hulls (Gould 1989: 124).
Cultural Considerations: Intended Use
While forts had been the preferred method of defence “against panic attacks at
home” (Hansard 1862: 853), the ability to construct ironclad coastal defence monitors was
appealing, and, as each architect believed, necessary to provide adequate protection during
these uncertain times. In looking for alternatives against the larger wooden vessels and big
iron-hulled broadside ironclads, coastal monitors were attractive because of their handiness,
armour protection, and lighter draft - further they did not “break the bank” to create.
Both USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus were ill-suited for battle at sea. As Admiral
Ballard later described the breastwork type, they were “seaworthy but uncomfortable”
(Nicholls 2001: 87). While the two vessels had similarities in structural capabilities,
Ericsson’s hull was built on an inwards angle and could operate in less than 11feet of water
(Konstam 2004: 21). With a full load of coals, HMVS Cerberus had a draught of 15 feet
62
with a metacentric height of 3 ½ feet. Here, a cultural comparison and an examination of the
intended destination and maritime cultural landscapes that affected the construction of each
vessel are warranted.
USS Monitor
The waterways of the eastern United States played a pivotal role in the battle of the
American Civil War. The Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and surrounding coastal
inlets, rivers and tributaries were strategically utilized to aid and combat naval engagements
during the war. Shipbuilders faced tremendous obstacles in outfitting these technological
innovations for successful combat during this era of naval warfare, simply because such
revolutionary and drastic measures on the battlefield had never been performed in history.
When USS Monitor and CSS Virginia met at Hampton Roads, the ensuing skirmish was the
site of the world’s first duel between ironclad warships (Watts 1985).
Hampton Roads, a harbour at the mouth of the James River, Virginia, is a large body
of water in the south-eastern United States. The surrounding water is one of the world’s
largest natural harbours and for centuries the location has served as an ideal location for
commerce, many major shipyards, coaling stations, and military operations.
63
Figure 4.4. Hampton Roads, Virginia showing the USS Monitor/CSS Virginia Engagement
Site.
Hampton Roads is a wide channel from which the James River, Nansemond River,
and Elizabeth Rivers pass into Chesapeake Bay in the Atlantic Ocean. The sheltered
waterway region has extensive natural areas, including 27 miles (42 km) of Atlantic Ocean
and Chesapeake Bay beaches. The average depth of Chesapeake Bay is 46 feet (14 m) and
the maximum depth is 208 feet (63 m). Sewell’s point, the closest land point to the
engagement site of CSS Virginia and USS Monitor, is located at the mouth of Hampton
Roads and is bordered by water on three sides.
64
Figure 4.5. Nautical Chart showing depths off Sewell’s Point. NOAA.
(http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12245.shtml) accessed 10 May 2012.
The area surrounding the approximate location of the clash of the ironclads is well
suited for coastal defence battles. It is also a highly public location, and the battle witnessed
by many (Stein 2005: 6). The landscape consists of shelter from strong currents and
elements, and has a depth ranging from 22 feet to 55 feet. While neither vessel was sunk,
the low profile of USS Monitor’s design proved to be advantageous, as it was almost
impossible to target from Confederate fire. Moreover, the revolving turret allowed USS
Monitor an extreme arc of fire, without having to navigate through the waterways
(Broadwater 2009: 128).
HMVS Cerberus
As fears of industrialization culminated in America, concerns too arose throughout
the world. Responsible for creating a vessel worthy of protecting the Colony of Victoria and
powerful enough to assert British naval superiority, E.J. Reed was faced with the additional
65
challenge of creating a vessel that could survive the trans-oceanic delivery voyage from the
United Kingdom to Australia. To be successful in the design development over that of its ill-
fated predecessors USS Monitor and HMS Captain, HMVS Cerberus had to be able to
navigate a multitude of navigational hazards before performing its duty to Victoria. The
delivery voyage to Australia via the Suez Canal was the longest voyage ever undertaken by a
monitor class vessel (Anderson 2002: 6). As it can be seen, the design of HMVS Cerberus
relied heavily on the navigational route to Australia.
While en route to Australia, HMVS Cerberus:
“left Suez on Christmas Day, and got through the canal in three days, but it was
slow work doing 80 miles, for [the Captain] was afraid to go faster than two
knots and a half, as the vessel would not remain straight for two minutes
together. She touched thrice, but so slightly that the composition was not taken
off her bottom. In some parts she had only just room to pass” (The Argus, Date
Unknown).
Port Phillip Bay
Port Phillip itself is a large bay in southern Victoria, Australia. The bay covers 1,930
square kilometres and the shores stretch roughly 164 miles (264 km), (figure 4.6) below. The
deepest portion of the bay is 24 metres (79 feet). Port Phillip Heads have unpredictable
conditions, and are considered very dangerous. The water flow though the entrance to Port
Phillip Bay is funnelled through a slim, (figure 4.7) one mile wide entrance known as the
“Rip”, producing a severe tidal current of up to 7 knots (Duncan 2006: 82).
The relatively shallow depths and strong currents throughout Port Phillip Bay
(Duncan 2006) assisted in creating a fear of foreign invasion amongst locals during a time of
colonial expansion throughout the industrial revolution. The principle dilemma of the colony
being how to achieve the best (and cheapest) system of protection, and where to place its
66
main gun batteries for the defence of the town of Melbourne (Nicholls 2001: 8). Based at
Williamstown for almost its entire service life, HMVS Cerberus was designed to steam
within the sheltered confines of Port Phillip Bay and Melbourne Harbour (Anderson 2002:
7). The vessel was to serve as a “floating battery” and was intended to eliminate the number
of shore fortifications throughout the bay. During its role in the bay, a special U-shaped
breakwater of loose rocks was constructed to enclose HMVS Cerberus, providing protection
against waves and currents (Gould 2010: 289). HMVS Cerberus proved vital to the colonial
defence strategy as “military influences played a significant role in the determining and
constraining of maritime use of this area” (Duncan 2006: 4).
Figure 4.6. Points of Interest in the Port Phillip Bay vicinity (Duncan 2006: 41).
67
Figure 4.7. The slim entrance to Port Phillip Bay, known as the “Rip” (Nicholls 2001: 8)
The arrival of HMVS Cerberus reduced fears about the defence of the Port Phillip
settlements. The vessel’s frequent trial runs throughout the area provided reassurance for the
people (Brownhill 1990: 640. Noble 1979:99). As the vessel succumbed to obsoleteness it
became more “increasingly integrated into an evolving defensive system” (Gould 2010:
298). Larry Murphy’s “one more voyage” hypothesis is relevant to this discussion, as
HMVS Cerberus remains one of the “innumerable examples” (Murphy 1983: 75) of a vessel
whose ship life was extended beyond sensible retirement. On 2 September, 1926, HMVS
Cerberus was towed by the tugs Agnes and Minah to be scuttled in Half Moon Bay, Victoria
(Herd 1986). One of the tugs, Minah (Figure 4.9), lies wrecked in Western Port, Australia,
and was visually inspected by the author January 2012.
68
Figure 4.8. The current state of the wreck of Minah in Rhyll, Western Port (Left), and Side Scan
Sonar imagery of the wreck (right), one of the two vessels that towed HMVS Cerberus to its final
resting place as a scuttled breakwater.
Part II: Direct Comparison of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus:
A wide variety of archaeological and historical sources have been consulted to
deduce a number of specification measurements that are set out below to form a comparison
of features that will be discussed in chapter five. These include a 1985 compilation of
historical drawings of USS Monitor by Capt. Ernest W. Peterkin, USNR (Ret.) digitized by
the internet archive in 2011 (Peterkin 1985), a periodical entitled Monitor National Marine
Sanctuary Activities Report (Vol. 3, No. 1), a copy of the Admiralty’s 1 July 1867
Specification for a twin screw iron armour-clad turret ship of 2107 tons, with monitor deck
and raised breastwork, for Melbourne (HMVS Cerberus) available in Bob Nicholls’ work,
The Three Headed Dog (Nicholls 2001). These measurements serve to provide data to
compare and contrast each vessel to determine the degree of similarity and differentiation
produced under similar conditions. Because of the experimental stages of ironclad
construction, vessels of the era were generally composed of a series of frames and deck
beams in the form of single angle iron. Thus, being an effect of the “application of European
wooden shipbuilding tradition to the medium of iron” (McCarthy 2001: 8).
Naval Architects
USS Monitor: John Ericsson (31 July 1803 – 8 March 1889) was a Swedish born
American inventor, and designer of USS Monitor. He had extensive experience building
canal boats in both England and the United States (Campbell 2009: 51, Church 1911: 99,
113). Associated with a nation in the midst of war, Ericsson and his radical designs in ship
construction produced a vessel during war time that Neyland shows, creates an arms race
69
that results in hurried and expedient constructions (Neyland 1998: 14). Knowing this,
Ericson successfully designed a strategy of easy assemblage for USS Monitor that saw each
section of the vessel built separately. This did not sacrifice the ship’s integrity, as it was an
experimental vessel, and proved a “success” (Watts 1979) over CSS Virginia.
HMVS Cerberus: Edward James Reed (20 September 1830 – 30 November 1906)
was the chief constructor of the Royal Navy from 1863 until 1870, and chief naval architect
of HMVS Cerberus. Reed knew that bold new technological innovations required as equally
bold responses. Reed had experience with the latest technology of iron construction and
machinery while working during the transition from sail to steam, and more importantly,
was ready to employ his experience with the new abilities of the industrial revolution. Some
of his colleagues were hesitant in this new idea of the British Navy, and were not as eager to
adapt to the new age of iron and steam. Reed also had the added advantage of learning from
the experiences of the American monitors before him. He believed that “no monitor of the
American type, i.e., a monitor with her turrets standing upon the low deck, unprotected by a
breastwork, and with all her hatchways and opening through the low deck – [could] be
considered a satisfactory sea-going vessel” (Reed 1869: 242). Notable warships constructed
under his direction include HMS Bellerophon, HMS Monarch, and HMS Devastation.
Principle Features
Hull Type
The layout of the hull is similar in the case of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. Because
vessels of these characteristics did not have the stabilizing “beam effect” of deep drafted
hulls, they tended to “hog” under stress caused by loading and movement (McGrath et al
1981: 40). As most naval and merchant iron ships of that time employed a shell plating
structure of fore-and-aft, in-and-out strakes, USS Monitor’s shell plates were laid
athwartships and flush riveted (MNMS Report 3.1: 3). In Table 4.3 are typical arrangements
70
of each vessel.
Table 4.3. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus ship specification
Description of Ship USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Overall Length 52.42 metres 68.6 metres
Breadth 12m 60 cm 13 m 71 cm
Draft 3m 20cm 5m 02cm
Displacement 987 Tons 3,344 tons
Hull & Armour Weight 1,255 Tons 2640 tons
Equipment Weight X 700 tons
Burden 987 Tons 2107 73/94 Tons (O.M)
USS Monitor: The hull of USS Monitor encompasses 174 feet by 41 feet, with a
displacement of 995 tons. The lower hull (displacement hull) measured 124 feet in width and
18 feet in length, producing a relatively shallow draft hull. The lower hull section was
constructed entirely of iron, while the upper hull was constructed of iron and wood
(Broadwater et al 1999: 58). The hull was built in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, Long Island (Watts
1979: 5). In an effort to reduce both construction time and costs, the lower hull of the vessel
had a “virtually flat bottom, extremely hard chine, and flat sides that rose to the inside of the
bottom of the overlapping lip of the armour belt” (Watts 1979: 27). Figure 4.10 shows USS
Monitor’s “hard chined” hull. The term “hard” is derived because the topside meets the
bottom at an angle, as opposed to a “soft” hull where topsides meet the bottom in a curve.
71
Figure 4.9. Transverse section of USS Monitor, showing hull design (Peterkin 1985: 128).
Ericssons’ hull was built on an angle and could operate in less than 11 feet of water
(Konstam 2004: 21). The strongest part of the vessel is the girder, made up of the inner
bulwark and the armour belt connected by braces. USS Monitor lacked a stem, sternpost, or
keel, with the bottom planks forming the ships sole longitudinal component (Peterkin 1984:
3).
72
Figure 4.10. USS Monitor’s original builders’ half model, showing the inward sloping hull
angle. (Canney 1993: 30)
Deck beams are supported inboard by 2 ½ inch ought iron stanchions that are bolted
rigidly to the floor timbers but are connected at a single point under the deck beams,
indicating some 80 stanchions are used throughout the ship. Additional transverse stability
was provided to the cross section with a 2 ¼ inch wrought iron square-diagonal brace
connecting the top of each deck stanchion and the lower edge of the beam bracket. USS
Monitor’s 55 main frames are spaced 36 inches apart and formed of 3 inch wide, 6 inch deep
angle iron on 36 degree sloping sides. On-site photographs indicate that these frames were
pierced with limber holes for circulation of bilge water. Additional stiffness was provided by
riveted four inch angle irons. The lower section of side plating is bent horizontally and single
riveted to bottom plates. The chine is unsupported between frames. The space where the
overhang and the sloping sides around the stern meet is reinforced with heavy angle iron
riveted to the hull and overhang. The plating appears to be laid athwartships and butt-
strapped.
Examination of the wreck confirms that the lower or displacement hull aft of the
amidships bulkhead differs from forward portions of the hull. Along both sides of the aft
lower hull plating has deteriorated and only the supporting frames remain. Forward of the
amidships bulkhead more extensive damage exists, and the entire displacement hull has
collapsed (Watts 1985).
73
Figure 4.11. USS Monitor hull rendering (Watts 1985: 17).
HMVS Cerberus: HMVS Cerberus’ hull measures 225 feet with an overall
displacement of 3,344 tons. It was manufactured by Messrs Cammel & Co of Sheffield. The
vessel had 250 h.p. and was propelled by twin screws. HMVS Cerberus sits on an even keel,
producing a draught of water 15 feet 6 inches and is steered by a balanced rudder that is
protected by an overhanging stern. Frames are 3 feet apart, except in the double bottom,
where frames are 4 feet apart. The plates were joined by butts that were placed on the
frames, as opposed to being between them. The breastwork principle designed by Reed is
characteristic of stepping in sides to enhance stability (Nicholls 2001), suggesting that, by
1866, the British recognized the tactical disadvantage of a low freeboard and low hatchways
and openings.
Figure 4.12. HMVS Cerberus Deck Plan, courtesy Friends of HMVS Cerberus.
(http://www.HMVS Cerberus.com.au/deck_plan.jpg), accessed 10 March 2012.
Additionally, Anderson (2002: 15) shows that the relative thinness of hull plating
(0.5” thick), “exhibits the function of the HMVS Cerberus in times of pre-torpedo and
74
submarine technology, with the emphasis on above waterline defences”. Figure 4.14
represents HMVS Cerberus’ relatively soft chine, and Table 4.4 compares USS Monitor and
HMVS Cerberus chine.
Figure 4.13. Construction of HMVS Cerberus hull in midships section (Nicholls 2001: 68).
Table 4.4. Chine: USS Monitor v HMVS Cerberus
Hull USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Hull Angle Inwards, 38.5° Horizontal None
Operational Depth 3m 35 cm 4m 57cm
In HMVS Cerberus, the strength of the hull was provided by a series of longitudinal
frames, four rising from each side of the keel. Towards the stern, where the shape of the hull
altered, the fourth longitudinal was bent down and riveted to the bottom plating (Nicholls
2001: 67). The overall design of the hull of HMVS Cerberus indicated a higher degree of
watertight integrity than that of USS Monitor, as the vessel had seven watertight bulkheads.
The hull was made almost completely of iron, with the exception of the steel vertical keel
and longitudinals. The decks varied between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus (Table 4.5)
75
Table 4.5. Deck configuration between vessels.
Decks USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Freeboard 45cm 1m 21cm
Iron Thickness Two layers, 1 inch
thick
Two layers, ¾ inch thick (Upper Deck)
Two layers, ½ inch thick (Breastwork Deck)
One layer, 3/8 inch thick (Flying Deck)
Beams Oak Beams Bulb Iron
Planking Pine Wood Planking Dantzic Oak 4 inch thick (Upper Deck)
Dantzic Oak 3 ½ inch thick (Breastwork
Deck)
Dantzic Fir 2 ½ inch thick (Flying Deck)
Armour
USS Monitor: A 30 inch long, half inch thick iron shelf extends from the lower edge
of the bulwark and is riveted to the bottom of angle brackets. The side armour belt consisted
of an iron shelf filled with wood timbers, covered in five layers of 1 inch thick (2.5cm) iron
plate. The deck was built of oak beams, which were covered with pine planks and two layers
of 1 inch iron plate (Peterkin 1985: 192-197, Broadwater et al 1999: 58-59). Figure 4.15
shows this iron belt.
76
Figure 4.14. Port Armour belt of USS Monitor, note extensive Damage (Watts 1985: 16).
HMVS Cerberus: The vulnerable part of HMVS Cerberus’ side was protected by
armour plating that ran in two strakes from the edge of the deck to three feet below the
waterline. The upper strake of the hull that ran 3 feet 6 inches down from the gunwales was
8 inches thick, while the lower strake was 6 inches (Nicholls 2001: 70).
77
Figure 4.15. Underwater image of the buoyant hull below armoured strake on port side,
partially collapsed (Anderson 2002: 17).
Figure 4.16. HMVS Cerberus hull after 1993 Collapse (Anderson 2002: 17).
Table 4.6. Armour plating at various locations on each vessel.
78
Armour Plating USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Upper Strake 5 Layers, 1 inch iron 8 inch thick
Lower Strake 5 Layers, 1 inch iron 6 inch thick
Upper Strake Taper N/A 8 inch to 5 ½ inch
Lower Strake Taper N/A 6 inch to 4 inch
Armour on Breastwork N/A 8 inch at midships
9 inches in wake of turrets
Fasteners ½ inch iron plates
spiked to wood
planking
Conical-headed iron bolts
3 inch diameter at upper strake
2 ½ inch diameter at lower strake
Bolt Material Iron Bowling, Lowmoor, Farnley Iron
Armour Belt 5 feet width 6 feet width
Armour Belt Layers 5 layers, 1 inch iron N/A
Armour Belt Consisting of Oak beams, Pine
planking
Teak
Below the Waterline 7/16 inch riveted iron
plates
½ inch thick, double riveted
Bottom-Based Construction
USS Monitor lacked a stem, sternpost, or keel, with the bottom plates forming the
ship’s sole longitudinal component (Peterkin 1984: 3). Two bulkheads supporting the turret
were fastened to the bottom hull with a construction method indicative of the bottom-based
tradition. Ericcson was likely cognizant of bottom-based tradition, as he grew up working on
Sweden’s Grota Canal, where shallow draft canal boats are generally bottom-based
(Campbell 2009: 51, Church 1911: 21). The strongest part of the vessel was the girder, made
up of the inner bulwark and the armour belt connected by braces (MNMS 3.1: 8). USS
Monitor had no flooding control compartment; which proved to be a fatal design flaw of the
vessel. USS Monitor’s performance in the open ocean is “akin to other shallow drafted
bottom-based vessels” (Campbell 2009: 51).
79
Double Bottom Construction
The double bottom principle is found on larger hulls, such as HMVS Cerberus.
General uses for the double bottom include carrying fuel, ballast or fresh water. Worth
noting, the double bottom provides an extra element of safety in the event the bottom shell is
pierced; only the double bottom space may be flooded. It is similar to that of single bottom
construction, with an additional layer of plating. Figure 4.18 represents Dean Chaflin’s
drawing, showing the construction of the midships portion of HMVS Cerberus’ hull.
Figure 4.17. Construction details, showing HMVS Cerberus’ double bottom principle
(Nicholls 2001: 66)
HMVS Cerberus was designed for the deliberate flooding of its “double bottom”.
This was a manufacturing innovation that allowed increasing the vessel’s draft. In this
innovation, it was possible (although no documented instances exist) for HMVS Cerberus to
flood from the bottom up to the level of the fourth longitudinal (Nicholls 2001: 75). In
effect, this flooding would make the ship a smaller target for enemies, increasing protection
of the hull. The total capacity of HMVS Cerberus’ double bottom was 474 tons, which
would have increased draft by approximately 18 inches, leaving a freeboard of slightly under
18 inches if the flooding of the double bottom was warranted. With this feature, HMVS
Cerberus had the capability of achieving the low freeboard measurements of USS Monitor,
80
without sacrificing any of its ability, protection or vulnerability. Understandably, this double
bottom principle would be flooded in the event of battle or emergency, but it is important to
note that it had the capability of doing so if need be.
Figure 4.18. Cut away view of HMVS Cerberus’ hold deck. Double bottom principle can be
viewed, surrounding the hull of the vessel (Nicholls 2001: Folio Print 2).
The idea of the double bottom principle, as seen with HMVS Cerberus, was an
innovation used for the first time in Brunel’s SS Great Britain, and later used by the
Admiralty in HMS Warrior (Anderson 2002: 9).
Keel
USS Monitor: USS Monitor had no structural keel, stem or sternpost (MNMS 3.1: 3). The
10 cm depth of the false keel of USS Monitor forms a fore and aft water limber for the bilge.
This served an important function because USS Monitor had no bilge pumps forward the
midships. According to contemporary reports, the false keel of USS Monitor was formed by
disking the bottom plates in approximately a 15 cm section of arc that runs the full length of
81
the bottom. Preliminary examination has not indicated such a feature, but future work may
reveal the shape (MNMS 3.1: 3).
Figure 4.19. A small sketch included in Thomas F. Rowland’s letter to John A. Winslow, 12 October
1862, describing shape of the bottom plates to form the keel of the USS Monitor. (Peterkin 1985:
173)
HMVS Cerberus: The keel of HMVS Cerberus was formed by two flat steel plates 1 inch
thick, separated by a vertical plate. It measured 27 ½ inches deep and tapered from the bow
and stern (Nicholls 2001: 68). The edges of the inner keel plate were single riveted to the
outer keel, with rivets ¾ inch in diameter. It consists of four longitudinal frames composed
of steel plates, running fore and aft of the vessel on each side of the keel. With the upper
longitudinal forming a shelf for armour. The remainder of the hull is built of iron. As shown
in the specifications, the vertical keel was to be carefully caulked, so that it would be able to
divide the double bottom into two separate water tight compartments (Nicholls 2001: 151).
Freeboard
USS Monitor: The hull of USS Monitor was almost completely submerged, producing only
13 inches (33cm) of freeboard. “Which meant she was only capable of operating in calm
coastal waters” (Konstam 2004: 21). The stern was 13 inches above the waterline and the
82
bow 32 inches above the waterline (Peterkin 1985). The only structures above the deck were
the revolving turret amidships, and a small pilot house near the bow (Broadwater et al 1999:
59). A February 25, 1861 survey of the vessel’s sheer lines showed a bow 19 inches above
stern (Peterkin 1981: 15-18). One of the great disadvantages of the Ericsson type monitor
was that the ventilators, access hatches and other openings in the deck were very close to the
waterline which can be seen in Figure 4.20.
Figure 4.20. Deck Plan, Outboard Profile and Transverse section of Turret (Harpers Weekly,
VI) March 29, 1862, p. 203. In (Peterkin 1985: 85).
HMVS Cerberus: HMVS Cerberus had a freeboard of approximately 4 feet, and the
breastwork extended 7 feet above the deck. This was advantageous in that it produced a
reduced target to the enemy, and was a significant improvement to the USS Monitor’s
original 13 inches of freeboard, as can be seen in Figure 4.7 below. With HMVS Cerberus’
freeboard elevated, principle hatchways and ventilation shafts were elevated, to reduce the
risk of flooding at sea. Reed improved the seaworthiness by making the weather deck as free
83
of apertures as could be possible, and armoured watertight hatch covers and watertight
piping ensured increased survivability rates when at sea.
Table 4.7. Comparative height of freeboard, in inches. Notice HMVS Cerberus Breastwork
Deck extending 84”.
Fore and Aft End Construction and Arrangement
USS Monitor: The upper portion of the hull extended beyond the lower portion, providing
ample protection for the rudder and screw. The bow and stern were plated vertically and the
plating on the lower hull ran athwartships rather than longitudinally. This configuration
technique minimized the required amount of time it took to produce bent iron plates for a
conventional hull design. USS Monitor lacked a stem, sternpost, or keel. The bottom plates
formed the ship’s sole longitudinal component (Peterkin 1984: 3). Initial difficulties in
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus Cerberus: Breastwork Deck
Freeboard: Height Above Waterline
Freeboard: Height Above Waterline
84
steering rendered the vessel almost useless, but adjustments were quickly made and the
vessel was commissioned 25 February 1862 (MacBride 1962). Figure 4.22 represents the
longitudinal sections of USS Monitor, engraved February 1862.
Figure 4.21. Fore and Aft arrangement, USS Monitor (National Archives). (Peterkin 1985:
105).
HMVS Cerberus: The sternpost and aft part of keel were to be forged of “the best
hammered Scrap Iron”, and was to run up the counter in a flattened form, extending beyond
the rudder head. Towards the stern, the fourth longitudinal was bent and riveted to the
bottom plating. This stem helped to harden plate structure and the overall integrity of the
ship. Figure 4.23 shows the fore and aft arrangement of HMVS Cerberus.
85
Figure 4.22. General Fore and Aft arrangement of HMVS Cerberus. http://www.HMVS
Cerberus.com.au/plan_ship1.jpg, accessed 15 February 2012.
Propulsion
Historical sources (Burgh 1873, Jamieson 1897) provide nineteenth century analyses
of the progression from paddle to screw propulsion and the reasons for the occurrence
(McCarthy 2001). Archaeological assessment, and “trend innovation” (Gould 1983) can be
seen with a comparison of the propellers between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. It is
understood that having two propellers resulted in poor performance and difficult steering,
but did make a ship more manoeuvrable (Gould 1983:206). This was a key advantage in
shallow waters or when making passage in an unfavourable wind, or in actual combat
(Nicholls 2001: 19).
86
Figure 4.23. Etchings of the USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus in dry dock, giving an
indication of the arrangement of the stern and screws. (http://www.cityofart.net/bship/USS
Monitor.htm) and (Nicholls 2001), accessed 13 April 2012.
USS Monitor: USS Monitor’s single four-bladed cast iron propeller was manufactured by
Delamater Iron Works in New York City (Hand 2005: 2). The propeller measures 9 feet in
diameter with a 16 foot pitch.
Figure 4.24. USS Monitor propeller drawing, dated 1861 (Hand et al 2005: 2)
A detailed 2005 measurement survey (Hand et al 2005) produced 3D imagery of the
USS Monitor propeller, and measured surface deviations, showing that Ericsson’s propeller
is within a probable tolerance of ± 10mm [0.38 in] (Hand et al 2005: 8). This concludes that
while under the rapid construction timeframe of USS Monitor, the propeller has an
acceptable tolerance even in today’s standards of maritime practice.
87
Figure 4.25. 3D Parasolid CAD model, USS Monitor Propeller (Hand et al 2005: 8)
HMVS Cerberus: HMVS Cerberus had twin screws, as opposed to USS Monitor’s one.
USS Monitor had a 9 foot diameter propeller, with a pitch of 16 feet. HMVS Cerberus was
propelled by the twin screws so it could be turned “on its own length, and the screws are
fitted with Maudslay’s Shifting blades.” The propellers were 12 feet in diameter with a 9
foot pitch providing a total area of 95 foot square (The Australasian Sketcher: 1874). One
source has indicated that the Maudslay shifting blades acted as a “poor man’s variable pitch
propeller” (Nicholls 2001: 81).
88
Figure 4.26. Illustration of HMVS Cerberus propeller blades, Bob Nicholls private
collection (Nicholls 2001: 81).
Superstructure
Superstructure plays an important part in the protection of principle openings above
the freeboard of a vessel. In the Ericsson design of his single rotating turret, hatchways and
other openings were led through the deck without coamings. Therefore, the hull could not be
considered to have a watertight integrity, because it had “no superstructure except for its
armoured “tower,” or gun turret, amidships and a small raised iron pilothouse forward
(Broadwater 2012: 43). USS Monitor had a hurricane deck, but no breastwork principle to
protect it. On this deck, the turret stood upon itself, three feet above the waterline. As a
consequence, the liability of a loss due to watertight issues was increased, as in the example
of the ill-fated Weehawken (The Popular Mechanics Journal, October 1 1869: 1).
Weehawken was later determined to have sunk due to improper over stowage of the fifteen
inch shells in the forward storeroom, compromising its already low freeboard, causing water
to rush into an open hawse pipe and hatch during a storm (Heitzman 1982: 15). Reed
89
explains, “she sank at her moorings in Charleston harbour at midday…her loss being caused
by a wave having passed over the deck when the fore-hatch was open for ventilation, This
brought her down by the head, and caused her to take in water through the hawse-holes…the
ship could not be saved” (Reed 1869: 246).
Breastwork Principle
One of HMVS Cerberus’ most conspicuous features was the breastwork principle. It
is a crucial difference between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. The breastwork monitor
was “regarded as an improvement on the American types of monitor” (Fletcher 1910: 334).
The lower portion of the below image is from the “as fitted” plans prepared by Chatham
Dockyard (Nicholls 2001: 66), showing the overall arrangement of the breastwork.
90
Figure 4.27. Breastwork Deck (Below). (Nicholls 2001: Folio Print 5).
The breastwork is on the midships part of the upper deck and is 112 feet long, 34
feet wide, and 6 feet deep. The breastwork is capped by circular ends and is protected by 9
inch armour across the turrets, with 8 inch armour on the sides of the breastwork. The upper
deck outside the breastwork is covered with two thicknesses of 0.75 inch plates. Skylights on
the deck are formed of 6 inch armour plates, 3 feet 6 inches high with strong watertight
covers. An armoured wall over 6 feet in height enclosed the central part of the upper deck, as
91
to protect the turret bases, funnel uptakes and hatchways from the elements. As Nicholls
states, “This had the advantages of improved seaworthiness, more freeboard and height
above water level for the gun, and air-shafts and accommodation ladders…taken up to a
comparatively safe height” (Nicholls 2001: 61). Inside the breastwork arrangement are the
turrets, the funnel, the ventilation shaft, and principle hatchways over the boiler space.
Because of this feature, all the principle openings in which water might enter during
seagoing conditions are brought up to a height of over ten feet above the water. The
breastwork system was strongly plated, providing increased protection from enemy fire. The
plating was 8 inches thick at the sides and 9 inches at extremities, and was backed in teak
(Nicholls 2001: 70). Still, Reed notes, “even with [these] provision(s), monitors are, in my
opinion, incapable of steaming against a head sea unless they are either of very large
dimensions…or else are fitted with sunk forecastles like that of the Thunderer” (Reed 1869:
241).
Historical accounts agree with Reed, showing that the breastwork principle did not
completely solve the problem of the open ocean. As shown in the log delivery book of
HMVS Cerberus:
“they thought I had been washed overboard or crushed by the spare
topmast breaking away from the lashings. I was sent to replace a bunker
cover the sea had washed away. The sea was pouring down below. It was a
very long time before I could get back to the hatchway, had to cling to top
of turret” (Breaks 1870: 25).
92
Figure 4.28. Cut away side profile view of USS Monitor (top) and HMVS Cerberus
(bottom). Note Breastwork feature, enclosing the two turrets of HMVS Cerberus. Image not
to scale.
Turret(s)
USS Monitor: USS Monitor’s single turret was held in place by gravity, and its thick walls
consisted of eight layers of 1 inch armour plating (Davis 1994, Peterkin 1981a, Still 1981).
Reed notes that:
“such a vessel, depending, as it does, upon the watertightness of the
junction between the turret and the deck, and obtaining that watertightness
by means of the weight of the turret closing the junction, is unable to
revolve her turret and fight her guns in a seaway, a circumstance which
alone renders her unfit for fighting actions at sea” (Reed 1869: 241).
Resting on an oak armature, the turret was completed at the Novelty Iron Works on
3 January 1862. Armour plates for the turret, “something over 100 of them” (Peterkin 1981a:
17), were put on in December and numbered 192. The plates came in eight thicknesses of
15/16 inch thick rolled iron, in sections of 9 feet high, with 8 different widths ranging from
31 7/8 inches to 33 3/3 inches wide. Rolling and hanging the heavy iron plates proved
93
difficult, as it was problematic to bore gunports in the already assembled bulkhead (Peterkin
1981a). Ericsson would have likely had the vessel constructed of steel, a stronger metal than
iron, but this was not possible due to large scale costs of manufacturing steel at the time
(Boesenberg 2006). The deck of USS Monitor had no curvature for 20 feet in order to
accommodate the turret (Peterkin 1985).
HMVS Cerberus: HMVS Cerberus employed two turrets, instead of the USS Monitor’s
one. The turrets are about 5 feet 6 inches above the breastwork and are constructed with two
18-ton guns that can be turned by either manual or steam power, shown in Figure 4.30
below. HMVS Cerberus’ turret had the following advantages over conventionally mounted
guns: a large arc of fire, being able to fight from both sides of the ship, maximum protection
for the gun crew and a hull with a lower profile (Nicholls 2001). An armoured breastwork
extended completely around both turrets on the weather deck, thus protecting the lower part
of the turret and the men working between them.
94
Figure 4.29. HMVS Cerberus, showing twin turrets. Image courtesy Flinders University.
Table 4.8. USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus Turret Comparison
Turrets USS Monitor HMVS Cerberus
Number of Turrets 1 2
Diameter 6m 70cm 6m 40cm
Approximate Weight 100 tons 400 tons total (Rogers 2008:
6)
Vertical Frames Not located by Author 10 inch wide 7/16 inch thick
Horizontal Frames Not Located by Author 8 inch X 3 ½ inch x ½ inch
Beams Pendulum: 19 feet 5 inches,
Wrought Iron
Bottom: Plate ½ inch thick, 12
inch deep
Beams Main: 19 feet 9 ½ inches
length
Top: Tee-bulb Iron, 6 inch
deep
Plating on Bottom ½ inch thick ½ inch thick
95
Plating on Top ½ inch thick ¾ inch thick
Wood Backing Oak East India Teak, 10 inch thick
Armour Plating 4 inch thick, 7 ½ Inch wide 10 inch thick, front
9 inch thick, back
Head Room 9 feet 5 inches Not Located
Bulkhead Thickness 7 ¾ inches N/A
Turret Braces Wrought Iron, 2 ½ inch
diameter
Iron, 3 ½ inch diameter
For a vessel of HMVS Cerberus’ class to rely on such a heavy weight amongst its
superstructure, approximately 400 tons (Rogers 2008), the freeboard had to be relatively
high above the waterline, to prevent the vessel from rolling in high seas.
Additional Considerations
Bulkheads
Bulkheads offer both strengh and compartmentalization for ships’ hulls, and, as with the
case of iron and steel ships, they provided for important flooding within the hull of certain
vessels. USS Monitor had only one complete structural bulkhead supporting the turret gear
amidships, which proved to be a crucial design flaw. In HMVS Cerberus, additional
protection against foundering was provided by seven watertight bulkheads, represented in
Figure 4.31 below.
96
Figure 4.30. HMVS Cerberus’ hull subdivision (Nicholls 2001: 67).
This innovative system ran from the keel to the weather deck and divided the ship into eight
sections of unequal length (Nicholls 2001: 67). This ensured additional safety precautions
and provided “damage control.”
Riveting
USS Monitor: A ½ inch sample of bottom plating recovered from the Harbour Branch
Expedition verifies riveting at 6 inch intervals across the bottom of the 3 inch angle iron
main frames. Corrosion marks left at this recovered sample indicates each plate was riveted
to adjoining plates via inside butt straps with 7/8 inch rivet at 2 ½ inch intervals (MNMS
3.1: 4). Furthermore, individual pieces of sprung hull plating lie on the seafloor at the
HMVS Cerberus’ site, exhibiting hull plate dimensions and riveted construction methods
(Anderson 2002).
Decking
USS Monitor: The main deck is 7 inches of pine laid in planks 1 foot wide and spiked to the
oak deck beams. Two courses of ½ iron plate fastened on thedeck (NMNS 3.1: 4). Original
building specifications of HMVS Cerberus show that a majority of the wood backing
97
utilized in the construction of HMVS Cerberus is East India Teak, free from all defects, and
include the waterway on the lower deck. The planked weather deck timber was thought to be
teak but tests have given results of Dantzic Oak (Anderson 2002: 18). Dantzic Oak planking
was “£12 per load in 1806, and double that in 1809 (Albion 1926: 337).
98
Chapter Five
“In answer to the question of whether an already well-documented iron wreck is capable of
adding to the understanding of the social context and behaviour of its owners and operators,
it is now clear that the answer can be affirmative” (McCarthy 2000: 190).
Introduction
This thesis has explored the sociocultural conditions affecting ship construction
between two nations during the industrial era arms race. It has shown, through a comparison
between the social, technological and economic conditions of the time, the similarities and
differences of two monitor class vessels produced by two like naval powers. The remaining
material culture at each shipwreck site illustrates national interests during times of war.
Aspects of American belief systems, British responses, and Victorian era colonial beliefs are
specific to each wreck site, allowing for general interpretations to be made. A direct
comparison between USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus bridges “colonial and national
defence theory, and is representative of the evanescent nature of industrial era warfare”
(Wimmer 2005: 85).
On the Social and Economic Conditions that Affected and Shaped
Naval Ship Construction During the Nineteenth Century
Both USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus are unique examples of the changing
attitudes of coastal defence during the industrial revolution. The advent of new industrial
technologies fulfilled a societal desire for protection and changed the way naval battles
99
would be fought. The true significance of the battle of Hampton Roads lies not only in the
tactical or military experience, but in the ways in which it encompassed deeper fears and
anxieties of the people (Stein 2010: 5). In terms of each vessels’ abilities to portray social
and cultural life during the mid-nineteenth century, USS Monitor demonstrates the design,
layout, and armament of a vessel constructed at a rapid response to an enemy threat, CSS
Virginia. This is evident in the fact that ship builders were faced with the task of
technological innovation for providing security for the nation. This can be seen in the
historical record by assessing the numerous reports, logs, charts and specifications readily
available as naval vessels often have more detailed documentation than their merchant
counterparts. These resources are indicative of a revolutionary vessel created in a short
length of time, in which ship builders were unaware of the downfalls with low freeboard on
ironclad vessels because it had not before been tested.
HMVS Cerberus is representative of Australian colonial reaction to the perceived
threat and fear of a Russian invasion. This fear was compounded by the departure from
Australia of British troops in 1870 (Wimmer 2005: 20). The vessel demonstrates Victoria’s
colonial dependency on Britain for engineering and defence solutions (Anderson 2002). Post
1840s British naval strategy during the period was based “on the principle that, as the sea
was one, so ought the Navy to be. It followed then that its control must be one and that
overall control must be in London” (Nicholls 2001: 3).
During this time of change, defence theory moved from “investing in static coastal
structures to the procurement of a highly mobile deterrent” (Wimmer 2005: 63). These
deterrents were built to protect national interests at sea, but also acted as national symbols.
By the time these new industrial technologies reached the Victorian colony in 1871, HMVS
Cerberus incorporated new innovations to improve seaworthiness and safety for the crew.
These innovations included heavily armoured breastwork protecting and raising hatches and
holes in the deck, longitudinal framing, watertight bulkheads, buoyancy chambers and a
double-bottomed hull concept that could sink the vessel to a lower profile (Anderson 2002:
100
9). The knowledge and the ability to construct a more seaworthy vessel were based directly
off the experiences gained from the American monitors of the Civil War.
Based on the results of this thesis, it appears that the general behavioural activity
that contributed to ship construction varied between the United States and Great Britain.
These behaviours were executed to best suit each nations needs during two different periods
of the industrial era arms race. It can be suggested that the opportunity to provide the
Victorian colony with a breastwork monitor based off the knowledge gained from American
monitors was not only for Victorian safety, but was in the best interest of Great Britain.
Because Port Phillip Bay is a strategic location for military positioning and for the protection
of coaling stations, the opportunity for an integrated vessel in a coastal defence system
allowed the British to create a national symbol of power. This affirmation of naval
superiority during the industrial revolution allowed the British to respond to the American
creation, producing a vessel that was superior to USS Monitor.
With Regards to Materials Available During the Industrial Era
Arms Race
Each vessel demonstrates that shipbuilders used materials which were readily
available and cost effective to keep production costs minimal. In attempts to achieve the
quickest possible results in building USS Monitor, the entire vessel was completed from start
to finish in the Hudson Valley region of New York (Cimino ND: 2). This shows that the
utilization of easily accessible materials ensures that not only would costs in procurement be
kept reasonably priced, but was also economical from a resource standpoint, and maximized
total output in minimal time.
The hull sample of USS Monitor analysed in petrological study (Sheridan 2004:
615) mentioned in Chapter 4 of this thesis provides a slag content that is nearly twice the
norm at 4.8 % volume (Boesenberg 2006). An explanation for this could be that “in the rush
101
to manufacture such a high quality of iron in 140 days, quality control was sacrificed,
resulting in a higher than normal proportion of slag remaining in the metal” (2006: 622).
Under the deadline imposed on USS Monitor, structural integrity may have been sacrificed.
This happens because “an arms race occurs in times of conflict, resulting in hurried and
expedient constructions” (Neyland 1998: 14).
The British had the time and resources, to roll “treble best” iron, i.e., the “very best
quality, highest strength irons, containing finely divided slag” (Morgan 1996: 11). This is
why the term “best best best” appears on the specification list for HMVS Cerberus. The
deep pockets of the British Navy allowed for such high quality iron to be constructed,
whereas USS Monitor was constructed during a time of war, and American labourers did not
have that liberty.
Despite its apparent industrial scale of production, wrought iron remained a craft-
based enterprise that required experienced labour and an immense amount of skill (Abell
1981: 147). Such skill and readily available machinery to fabricate iron plating would have
been scarce in a frontier setting such as Australia. Because HMVS Cerberus’ was intended
for the protection of the Colony of Victoria, British builders exploited a higher grade iron
which had a longer use life. The use of this stronger iron provided a more secure platform
which in turn created a more secure vessel. This is evident in the corrosion samples
undertaken by Ian MacLeod (2011) who has determined the iron to be more stable than
previously thought.
Archaeological assessment has shown that the oak utilized in the construction of
USS Monitor is deteriorating (Watts 1979). Oak was readily available and reasonably priced
in northern New York and surrounding areas during the American Civil War. As time was
critical in construction, the available oak hardwood provided ample means for outfitting
USS Monitor in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, the majority of timber utilized in
HMVS Cerberus still remains today. The planked weather deck timber that makes up
102
HMVS Cerberus was thought to be teak but tests have given results of Dantzic Oak
(Anderson 2002: 18). Dantzic Oak planking was “£12 per load in 1806, and double that in
1809” (Albion 1926: 337). Based on the data gathered from this thesis, tactical decisions
surrounding the application of available resources show that each nation consulted materials
both easily accessible for construction. These resources had adverse effects on each vessels’
performance. It is suggested that more attention to detail and a longer deadline date allowed
the British to create a vessel that was able to better withstand an open ocean environment,
evidenced in the fact that HMVS Cerberus successfully completed a transoceanic voyage to
Australia from Great Britain.
Measuring the Degree of Similarity and Differentiation Between
USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus
The British had a key advantage in learning from American downfalls, a term
Richard Gould coined “trend innovation.” HMVS Cerberus is a product of nineteenth
century trend innovation. This concept, introduced by Gould (1983), is conceived from the
industrial era and the “copycat” tendencies of various nations in their quest for naval
supremacy in an ever evolving arms race. HMVS Cerberus reflects specialized construction
innovations that are specific to the breastwork monitor type vessel while it retains features
similar to USS Monitor. Differences include increased armour, the breastwork principle,
elevated turrets and varying levels of freeboard. Similarities include steam propulsion,
revolving turrets and armour plating (Anderson 2002).
HMVS Cerberus’ breastwork system provides greater safety and efficiency at sea.
In USS Monitor, bases of funnels, ventilating shafts and hatchways require separate
protection and the turret was required to be completely armoured from roof to base. The
breastwork principle allowed only the parts of the turrets showing above the breastwork to
103
be armoured. This indicates that Reed was conscious of problems faced with additional
weight on monitor type vessels.
In an effort to save time, Ericsson designed the lower hull of the Monitor with a flat
bottom, hard chine, and flat sides (Watts 1985: 27). This configuration minimized expenses
and time consumption to obtain a “sea-kindly and conventional hull design” (Watts 1985:
27). Reed incorporated a flat bottom, probably from the experiences gained by the American
monitors. Furthermore, the structural arrangement of the bracket-frame system and the
double bottom feature employed by HMVS Cerberus show that these designs are another
example of trend innovation which was gradually improved upon by Reed to provide
increased stability.
The choice of propulsion systems in HMVS Cerberus and USS Monitor is
interesting as well. A 2005 detailed measurement survey (Hand et al 2005) showed that
Ericsson’s propeller was within a probable tolerance of ± 10mm [0.38 in] (Hand et al 2005:
8). This indicates that while under the rapid deadline for producing USS Monitor, the
propeller has an acceptable tolerance even in today’s standards of maritime practice.
Independent to this, McCarthy shows that in frontier settings, engines and general
mechanical fittings will be selected for low maintenance and ease of changing of parts,
rather than for efficiency (McCarthy 2000: 196). This explains HMVS Cerberus’ two
economical Maudslay shifting blades, which one source dubbed as a “poor man’s variable
pitch propeller” (Nicholls 2001: 81). It is understood that having two propellers resulted in
poor performance and difficult steering, but did make a ship more manoeuvrable (Gould
1983:206). This was advantageous in shallow waters or when making passage in an
unfavourable wind, or in actual combat (Nicholls 2001: 19).
The data collected in this research indicates that there is an “evolution” in the
advancement of the modern battleship as we know it today, but not linear as some academics
suggest. Rather a culmination of available resources, information and technological
104
innovation spawning from a multitude of societies that share common aims in attaining the
best possible procurement during the industrial era arms race. British monitors are, in a great
measure, the result of the experience Americans have gained in their monitors during actual
service. The protective iron plating and some second tier engineering features such as the
inferior Maudslay propeller suggests that HMVS Cerberus was created to evoke a visual
statement of assertiveness to reduce the risk of attack on Port Phillip Bay. In creating this
vessel which was stronger in appearance, stability and seaworthiness was increased. The
final result was a vessel that was structurally more sound than USS Monitor.
Addressing Seaworthiness and How Affective These Vessels Were as
Ships of War
To measure the seaworthiness of a vessel, characteristics such as manoeuvrability,
weight, draft and speed produce calculations for stable hulls on the open ocean (Figure 5.1).
The data collected in this research indicates that HMVS Cerberus provided a more
manoeuvrable platform than USS Monitor based on the utilization of twin screws. It shows
vessel specifications that are indicative of almost three times the size to that of USS Monitor,
and compares the larger draft and higher freeboard of HMVS Cerberus to the downfalls of
USS Monitor. Additionally, the successful deployment of HMVS Cerberus to Australia
shows that rational evaluations of the vessels’ capabilities were undertaken during and after
the construction of the vessel. Ship builders were aware of the need for a seaworthy vessel to
reach its intended destination inside the coastal confines of Half Moon Bay. This thinking is
a key difference in the construction of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus. HMVS Cerberus
had to be constructed to be able to make the voyage to Australia whereas USS Monitor was
not meant to leave the coastal regions of the Eastern seaboard. Because of this, more time
was spent addressing seaworthiness in HMVS Cerberus as opposed to USS Monitor.
105
Figure 5.1.Diagram of Stable and unstable hull Conditions (Gould 2000: 77)
A basic factor affecting the general stability of a vessel’s hull and the overall
performance of a ship at sea is loading. Because monitor class vessels did not have the
stabilizing “beam effect” of deep drafted hulls, they tended to “hog” under stress caused by
loading and movement (McGrath et al 1981: 40). As was common amongst American
monitor type vessels, rolling caused the metacentric height to vary to a point of instability.
Such was the case of the sinking of USS Weehawken (1862), even at calm seas. With a full
load of coals, HMVS Cerberus’ metacentric height was 3 ½ feet, with a maximum stability
angle of 25 degrees. Cerberus’ theoretical stability was calculated and the below assessment
was produced (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. Theoretical stability of HMVS Cerberus, based on The Engineer April 1871
(Nicholls 2001: 87)
106
While the relatively low freeboard of monitor type vessels meant that the class as a
whole was generically unseaworthy compared to the more seaworthy craft on the water at
the time, the breastwork monitor was indeed advancement to the “evolution” of the modern
battleship in regard to seaworthiness. Admiral Ballard later described the breastwork type as
“seaworthy but uncomfortable” (Nicholls 2001: 87).
Conclusion
This thesis has demonstrated the potential of ironclad monitor wrecks as
archaeological sites. This has been achieved by describing the sociocultural aspects involved
with ship construction, and directly comparing and contrasting the social, economic and
technological similarities and differences between two similar vessels in similar periods.
Both USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus played a significant role in the development of the
modern warship, and were both innovative in their design and structural components during
the industrial revolution, which were both specific to the regions of the world for which they
were created. The technological developments associated with each vessel create a more
powerful system of protection and coastal defence, which both prevented and sparked
cultural fears amongst nations in their ever increasing desire for protection. A multitude of
historical and archaeological references were consulted to reveal differentiation and
similarities in ship construction between the vessels that allowed the author to explore a new
aspect on two readily documented wreck sites.
By providing a comparative analysis between the two vessels, the research
performed in this thesis provides the groundwork for further comparative studies in ship
construction and the sociocultural conditions that affect it. No comparative archaeological
analysis on monitor type vessels has been undertaken at the time of the completion of this
thesis. Because of this, there is a great potential for this work to aid in a wider archaeological
study of monitor and breastwork monitor type vessels as a whole. The work will also aid
with industrial era coastal defence instillations worldwide. While the author was not able to
107
visit either site, the work provides a large dataset of information that is useful to historians
and archaeologists alike with emphasis on the industrial era arms race, tactical decision
involved during times of war, maritime history of the United States and Great Britain, and
nineteenth century Victorian naval and maritime history.
In conclusion, the archaeology of USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus has advanced
an understanding of the changing attitudes toward coastal defence and weapons procurement
between 1862 and 1872. Site specific features, which include varying freeboard, the
breastwork principle and alternative hull structure and construction methods, explain
different behavioural patterns in different sociocultural systems. It seems that these
differences in the archaeological records at USS Monitor and HMVS Cerberus sites may be
attributable to different behavioural patterns in different sociocultural systems that desired
the same outcome in a modern era arms race. A possible explanation is that by the nineteenth
century British influence over the colony in Port Phillip Bay, Australia was so dominant that
the British ensured they maintained strategic tactical advantage by creating a vessel that
would create a national symbol while providing protection for the colony, which was in best
interests of not only Australia, but Great Britain as well. This behaviour showed the world
that “our vessels would…be superior to their American predecessors” (The Practical
Mechanics Journal, October 1 1869: 5).
108
109
Bibliography
Abell, W.
1981 The Shipwrights Trade, Conway Maritime Press, London.
Albion, R.
1926 Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652-1862 (Classics of Naval Literature).
Anderson, R.
2001 Ned Kelly and the Cerberus. Heritage Victoria Inherit (11). October
Anderson, R.
2002 HMVS Cerberus Conservation Management Plan, Maritime Heritage Unit, Heritage Victoria.
Anonymous.
Notes on the Cerberus from the Sandringham Municipal Liberty. Heritage Victoria, Maritime Heritage Unit.
Arnold, J.B., III, Fleshman, G.M., Hill, D.B., Peterson, C.E., Stewart, W.K. Gegg, S.R., Watts, G.P.Jr and Weldon, C.
1991. The 1987 Expedition to the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary: Data Analysis and Final Report. Washington DC.
Arnold, J.B., III, Oertling, T.J., Hall, A.
2001 The Denbigh Project: excavation of a Civil War blockade- runner. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30 (2): 231-249.
Aston, J., and Story, E.B.
1952. Wrought iron, its manufacture, characteristics and applications, A.M. Byers, Pittsburgh.
Attwood, E.L.
1912 War-ships: A Text-Book on the Construction, Protection, Stability, Turning, etc., of War Vessels (5th Edition). Longmans, Green, and Co, London: 103-117
110
Ballard, G.A.
1980 The Black Battlefleet. Nautical Publishing Corporation, Lymington.
1946 The First Mastless Capital Ship. The Mariner’s Mirror 32: 4.
Baker, H.R., Bolster, R.N., Leach, P.B., and Singleterry, C.R.
1969 Examination of the Corrosion and Salt Contamination of Structural Metal from the USS Tecumseh. Washington DC.
Baxter, J.P., III
1933 The Introduction of the ironclad warship, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Md
Boesenberg, J.S.
2006 Wrought Iron from the USS Monitor: Mineralogy, Petrology and Metallography. Archaeometry 48(4): 613-631.
Bourne, J.
1872 Examples of Modern Steam, Air and Gas Engines of the Most Recent Approved Types. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, London: 1-3.
1867 Ships of War. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Vol. XXVI Session 1866-1867: 171.
Bowens, A.
2009 Underwater Archaeology: the NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. Blackwell Publishing, UK.
Breaks, J.L.
1870 Unofficial Log Book for the Delivery voyage of HMVS Cerberus. Transcribed by Peter Williams, 1972. Electronic Document, http://www.cerberus.com.au/log_delivery.pdf, accessed 14 April 2012.
Broadwater, J.
2006 USS Monitor recovery expeditions, 1998-2002. In McCarthy, M. (eds.) 2009. Iron, Steel and Steamship Archaeology. Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Seminar, held in Freemantle, Melbourne, and Sydney, 2006.
2012 USS Monitor: A Historic Ship Completes its Final Voyage. Nautical Archaeology. Texas A&M University Press, Texas.
111
Brown, D.K.
2003 Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905. Caxton Editions. Seaforth Publishing.
Brownlee, W.
1985 Warrior: the First Modern Battleship. Cambridge University Press.
1987 HMS Warrior, Scientific American. 257 (6): 130-136
Burgh, N.
1873 A practical treatise on boilers and boiler-making. E. & F.N. Spon, London.
Cahill, D.
1984. The Cerberus. Maritime Archaeology Assiociation of Victoria: Project Reports 1984. Maritime Archaeology Association of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
1988. Cerberus. In: McCarthy, M., (ed), Iron ships and steam Shipwrecks: Papers from the Frist Australian Seminar on the management of iron vessels and steam shipwrecks, western Australian maritime museum. Freemantle, Australia: 160-162.
Cahill, D., Carroll, D., Davenport, R., McKenzie, S., McPherson, D. 1983 H.M.V.S. Cerberus, Maritime Archaeology Association of Victoria,
Melbourne.
Campbell, P.
2010 Transformations in Conceptual approaches to Ship Construction: Development of the Confederate Inland Ironclads. ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings, Chris Horrell and Melanie Damour (eds.):68-75.
Childress, F., Lt. Cmdr.
1978 NOAA/Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. Expedition for stereo photography and artefact retrieval, in The Monitor, its meaning and future (ed. L. E. Tise). The Preservation Press (National Trust for Historic Preservation), Washington DC: 42-44
Cimino, M.R.
112
ND The Construction of USS Monitor and its impact on the Upper- Hudson Valley. Electronic Document, http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/library/pdfs/uss_monitor_construction. pdf Accessed 22March 2012.
City of Sandringham
1986 Save the Cerberus: A submission for the restoration of HMVS Cerberus the historically unique iron Monitor warship of the Australian Navy and former flagship of the Victorian Navy, Melbourne.
Coggins, J.
2004 Arms and Equipment of the Civil War, Dover Publications, Dover Ed, Delaware.
Colquhoun, A.R., & Associates Pty Ltd.
1994 HMVS Cerberus structural collapse 27 December 1993: Diving survey and report, unpublished report. Victoria.
Conlin, D.L.
1998 Ship Evolution, ship ‘ecology’, and the ‘Masked Value Hypothesis’. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 27(1): 3-15.
Conlin, D.L., & Russell, M.A.
2006 Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield: H.L. Hunley and USS Housatonic. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 35(1): 20-40
Conlin, D.L., and Russell, M.
2011 Maritime Archaeology of Naval Battlefields. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and Topic, ed. Geier, C., Babits, L., Scott, D., and Orr, D. College Station: Texas A&M University Press: 39-56
Contemporary Reports of HMVS Cerberus
1869 The Practical Mechanics Journal, October 1 1869. Electronic Document http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1870 Williamstown Chronicle, Feb 5, 1870. Electronic Document http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
113
1870 The Malta Times & Service Gazette, Dec 14 1870. Electronic Document http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1871 The Age. 10 April, 1871. Electronic Document, http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1871 The Argus. 10 April 1871. Electronic Document, http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1871 The Leader, April 15, 1871. Electronic Document http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1874 The Australasian Sketcher, July 11 1874. Electronic Document, http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
1883 The Harold 27 May, 1883. Electronic Document http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 15 October, 2011.
N.D. The Argus, Electronic Document, http://www.Cerberus.com.au/contemporary.html. Accessed 2 April, 2011.
Corlett, E.C.B
1970 The iron ship: the history and significance of Brunel’s Great Britain. Moonraker Press, London.
Crocker, E.
ND Reminisces of Fitch Hollow, Unpublished report, transcribed by Casteel, D., 2000. Electronic Document, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~c1debbi/Finch.pdf accessed 10 February 2012.
Davis, W.C.
1975 Duel between the first ironclads, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pa.
DeKay, J.T.
1997 Monitor: the story of the legendary Civil War ironclad and the man whose invention changed the course of history, Walker, New York.
Delgado, J.P.
114
1992 Recovering the Past of USS Arizona: Symbolism, Myth, and Reality. Historical Archaeology 26 (4): 69-80.
Douglas, S.H.
1858 On Naval Warfare and Steam. J. Murray Publisher, London.
Dromgoole, S.
1999 Legal Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International perspectives. The Hague: Kluwer Law International
Duncan, B.
2000 Signposts in the Sea: An Investigation of the Shipwreck Patterning and Cultural Seascapes of the Gippsland Region, Victoria. Honours thesis, James Cook University, Townsville.
Effenberger, S
1995 HMVS Cerberus Archive Directory, internal report prepared for Heritage Victoria and City of Bayside, HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd, Newcastle NSW.
Ericsson, J.
1887 The Building of the Monitor, In battles and leaders of the Civil War. Edited by Robert V. Johnson and Clarence G. Buel. 4 Vols (1) New York, NY
Fletcher, R.A.
1910 Steam Ships: the story of their development to the present day. Sidgwick & Jackson, Philadelphia: 334-335.
Foster, L.
1989 Defence and Victorian shipwrecks. Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 13(1): 19-27
Friel, I.
2003 Maritime History of Britain and Ireland. The British museum, England.
Fuller, H.J.
2008 Clad in Iron: The American Civil War and the Challenge of British Naval Power. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.
Gamble, C 2001 Archaeology: The Basics. Routledge, London.
115
Garcia, R.
2010 Assessment of gun carriage (interior of forward turret), prepared for Heritage Victoria, unpublished Report. Victoria
Gillmer, T.
1982 Evolving ship design technology revealed in wrecks of post medieval ships. In C.O. Cunderlund (Ed.), Post Medieval Boat and Ship Archaeology. Papers based on those presented by an International Symposium on Boat Archaeology in 1982. Oxford.
Gordon, R.B.
2001 American iron 1607-1900, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
Gould, R., (ed.)
1983 Shipwreck Anthropology. Albuquerque
Gould, R.,
1989 HMS Vixen. An Early Ironclad in Bermuda. Underwater archaeology proceedings from the society for historical archaeology conference. The Society for Historical Archaeology. Ronald L Michael (ed). Baltimore, Maryland: 124-128.
1990 Recovering the Past, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
2000 Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge.
Grantham, J
1859 Iron shipbuilding with practical illustrations. (2nd ed.) Lockwood, London.
Greier, C., et al. (eds)
2011 Historical archaeology of military sites: method and topic, College Station, Texas A&M University Press.
Gutteridge Haskins & Davey (GHD)
2000 HMVS Cerberus: Report on Engineering Feasibility Study, unpublished report for Heritage Victoria. Victoria
Hand, S., Mongon, W., Clark, J., Schindelholz, E.
116
2005 Measurement of the USS Monitor Propeller Using Structured Light and Coherent Laser Radar Scanning Technologies. Proceedings of CMSC 2005 Coordinate Systems Measurement Conference. July 18- 21, 2005, Austin, Texas.
Heitzman, W. R.
1982 The Ironclad Weehawken in the Civil War, Peabody Museum of Salem: 15
Herd, R.J.
1986 HMVS Cerberus: Battleship to Breakwater. Sandringham City Council. Australia
Hoehling, A, A.
1976 Thunder at Hampton Roads, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hovgaard, W.
1971 Modern History of Warships: Comprising a discussion of present standpoint and recent war experiences, for the use of students of naval construction and others interested in naval matters. US Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Md: 30
Illustrated Australian News [Melbourne, Vic]
1871 No Title, April, 22nd, 1871. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ingleton, G.C.
1934 Watch Dogs Infernal and Imperial, Golden Lantern, Adelaide.
Jamieson, A.
1897 A text-book on steam and steam engines: Specially arranged for the use of science and art, city and guilds of London Institute and other engineering students. (12th ed.) Charles Griffin, London.
Jansen, M.H.
1867 The Revolution in Naval Warfare. Harrison and Sons, London.
Konstam, A.
2004 Hampton Roads 1862: Clash of the Ironclads. Osprey Publishing
Lambert, A.
1984 Battleships in Transition. Conway Maritime Press, London
117
Lambert, A.
1987 Warrior: The World’s First Ironclad Then and Now. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press: 170-186.
Lenihan, D.J.
1989 Submerged Cultural Resources Study: USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbour National Historic Landmark, Santa Fe, NM.
Lenihan, D., Murphy, L., Labadie, P., Holden, T., & Livingston, J.
1994 Shipwrecks of the Isle Royale National Park: The archaeological survey. Lake Superior Port Cities, Duluth, Minnesota.
Lenihan, D.J. and Murphy, L.E.
1998 Research Design, in L.E. Murphy (ed.), H.L. Hunley Site Assessment, 15-20. Santa Fe, NM.
MacBride, R.
1962 Civil War Ironclads: The Dawn of Naval Armour. Chilton Books, New York.
MacLeod, I.D., North, N.A. and Beegle, C.J.
1986 The Excavation, analysis and conservation of shipwreck sites. In Preventative Measures During Excavation Site Protection, ICCROM Conference, Ghent. 1985: 113-131
MacLeod, I.D.
1995 An in-situ study of the corroded hull of HMVS Cerberus (1926), unpublished report for Maritime Heritage Unit, Heritage Victoria.
1996 An In-Situ conservation study of the corroded hull of HMVS Cerberus (1926). Proceedings of the 13th International Corrosion Congress, Australasian Corrosion Association, Melbourne: 1-10
1999 Conservation options for the management of the wreck of the Cerberus. Review of consultants reports re treatment options for HMVS Cerberus, unpublished report for Maritime Heritage Unit, Heritage Victoria
2010 Assessment of the impact of scallop dredging, site clearance and cathodic protection on the City of Launceston (1865) in Port Phillip Bay. In: R. Anderson (ed.), Final report on SS City of Launceston (1863-1865) excavation and conservation 1997-2009, Special Publication Australian National Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archaeology No. 14. Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology. Special Publication No 16: 94-103.
118
MacLeod, I.D., & Steyne, H.
2011 In-situ conservation management of historic iron shipwrecks in Port Phillip Bay: a study of J7 (1924), HMVS Cerberus (1926) and the City of Launceston (1865). In Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (35): 67-80.
Maritime Heritage Unit
1999 Wreck Inspection Report Cerberus Tues 13 April 1999. Unpublished report for Maritime Heritage Department, Victoria
McCarthy, M. 1979a Jervoise Bay Shipwrecks. Department of Maritime Archaeologoy,
Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia.
1979b The Jervoise Bay Study. The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 2(1): pp. 36-39
1983 Salvage Archaeology: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the Second
Southern Hemisphere Conference on Maritime Archaeology, William Jeffery and Jennifer Ames, editors, pp. 283-291, Department of Environment and Planning and the Commonwealth Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Adelaide, South Australia.
1986 Conservators Underwater (and archaeologists above). In H. Mansell, 1986, (Ed.), Towards 200, Papers from the Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material Conference, Perth, 1985. ICCM Bulletin,12 (4). Pp. 21-26
1988 Iron ships and steam shipwrecks: Papers from the first Australian
seminar on the management of iron vessels and steam shipwrecks (1985), Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle.
1989 The Excavation Continues… In the laboratiory. In J. Bickersteth, (Ed.), Bulletin of the Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material: 21-28.
1996 SS Xantho: An Iron Steamship Wreck-Towards a New Perspective in Maritime Archaeology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld.
2001 Iron and Steamship Archaeology: Success and Failure on the SS ‘Xantho’. New York
McCordock, R. S.
1938 The Yankee Cheese Box. Dorrance & Company, Inc., Philadelphia.
119
McKee, E.
1976 Identification of timbers from old ships of North-Western European origin. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (5): 3-12
McManamon, F., Cordell, L., Lightfoot, K., Milner, G.
2008 Archaeology in America: An Encyclopaedia. The USS Monitor Shipwreck Site. Greenwood (4): 195
Melton, M.
1968 The Confederate Ironclads. Thomas Yoseloff, London and New York.
Merton, R.K.
1968 Social Theory and Social Structure (3rd ed.) Free Press, New York
Miller, E.M.
1978 USS Monitor: the Ship That Launched a Modern Navy. Annapolis, Maryland: Leeward Press.
Mindell, D.A.
1995 “The Clangor of that Blacksmith’s fray”: Technology, war and experience aboard the U.S.S. Monitor, Technology and Culture (36): 242-270.
Mindell, D.A.
2000 War, technology, and experience aboard the USS Monitor. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
Mott, L.V.
1997 The Development of the Rudder, A Technological Tale. Studies in Nautical Archaeology Number 3. London
Muckelroy, K.
1978 Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1980 Archaeology underwater: An atlas of the world’s submerged sites. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Muga, B.
120
1982 Engineering Investigation of the USS Monitor. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Murphy, L.
1983 Shipwrecks as database for human behavioural studies, in R. Gould (ed.), Shipwreck Anthropology, Albuquerque: 65-90
.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2012 Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, Draft Revised Management Plan, April 2012. United States Department of Commerce, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Newport News, VA.
Neyland, R.
1998 The Archaeology of Navies: Establishing a Theoretical Approach and Setting of Goals.Babits, L, Fach, C., Harris, R., (eds.) Society for Historical Archaeology. Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
Nicholls, B.
2001 The three-headed dog: towards the first battleship: A study of the breastwork turret ship HMVS Cerberus. Bob Nicholls, Bowral, Australia
Nutley, D.
2000 Developing a methodology for identifying, assessing and managing inundated archaeological sites in Australia. Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (24): 35-36
O’Shea J.
2002 The Archaeology of scattered wreck-sites: formation processes and shallow water archaeology in western Lake Huron. The International Journal of Maritime Archaeology 31 (2): 211-227
Oertling, T.J.
1996 Ships’ Bilge Pumps, A History of Their Development, 1500- 1900. Studies in Nautical Archaeology Number 2. College Station, Texas.
Paine, L.P.
1997 Ships of the World: an Historical Encyclopaedia. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Parkes, O.
121
1957 British Battleships: ‘Warrior’ 1860 to ‘Vanguard’ 1950: A History of Design, Construction and Armament. Revised Edition; London: Seeley Services & Co: 168-169
Peterkin, E.W.
1978 The construction, contents, and conditions of the wreck of the USS Monitor, in The Monitor, its meaning and future (ed. L.E. Tise), The Preservation Press (National Trust for Historic Preservation) Washington, DC: 22-28
1981a Building a behemoth, Civil War Times, 20(4): 12-21.
1981b To raise her, Civil War Times, 20(4): 42-3
1985 Drawings of the USS Monitor. USS Monitor Historical Report Series, Vol. 1, Num. 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Prepared for the Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, State of North Carolina.
Reed, E.J.
1859 On the modifications which the ships of the Royal Navy have undergone during the present century, in respect to dimensions, form, means of propulsion and power of attack and defence. Robertson, Brooman Publisher. London
1869 Our Iron-Clad Ships; Their Qualities, Performances, and Cost. John Murray Publishers, London.
1884 Modern Ships of War. Sampson Low and Marsden, London
Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P.
1991 Archaeology, theories, methods and practice. Thames and Hudson, New York.
Richards, N.
2002 Deep Structures: An Examination of Deliberate Watercraft Abandonment in Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Flinders University, South Australia.
Richards, N.
2003 The role of geo-politics in cultural site formation: A case study from the Northern Territory. Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (28): 97-106
2008 Ships Graveyards. University Press of Florida. Florida
122
Rippon, P.M.
1988 Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy, vol. 1: 1827-1939. Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Spellmount Ltd: 77-78
Roberts, W.
1999 The Name of Ericsson. Political Engineering in the Union Ironclad Program, 1861 to 1863. The Journal of Military History, 63(4): 823- 843
Rogers, J.
ND Save the Cerberus homepage. Electronic document, http://cerberus.com.au. Accessed 12 October 2011.
2008 Guarding the Entrance to Victoria. Save the Cerberus organization. Electronic Document, http://www.johnrogers.com.au/articles/guarding_entrance.pdf, accessed 10 February 2012.
Rosenholtz, J.L.
1930 The elements of ferrous metallurgy, John Wiley, New York.
Russel, M.A., Murphy, L.E., Johnson, D.L., Foecke, T.J., Morris, P.J., Mitchell,R.
2004 Science for Stewardship: Multidisciplinary Research on USS Arizona, Marine Technology Society Journal. 38(3): 54-63.
Sandler, S.
1979 The Emergence of the Modern Capital Ship, Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Schofield, J., Johnson, W. and Beeck, C. (eds)
2002 Introduction to Material Culture: The Archaeology of Twentieth Century Conflict. Routledge, London: 1-8
Searle, W.F., Jr., Capt.
1978 Salving the Monitor, in The Monitor, its meaning and Future (ed. L.E. Tise), The Preservation Press (National Trust for Historic Preservation), Washington, DC: 112-122
Sheridan, R.E.
1979 Site charting and environmental studies of the Monitor wreck, Journal of Field Archaeology (6): 253-264.
123
2004 Iron from the deep: the discovery and recovery of the USS Monitor, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.
Staniforth, M. & Nash, M.
2006 Maritime Archaeology; Australian Approaches. Springer Science and Business Media, United States.
Steffy, J.R.
1994 Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station, Texas.
Stewart, W.K.
1991 Multisensor visualization for underwater archaeology, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 13-18.
Still, W.N.
1961 Confederate Naval Strategy: The Ironclad. Journal of Southern History: 330-343.
1981 To begin in the middle, Civil War times, 20(4): 10-11
1988 Monitor builders: a historical study of the principal firms and individuals involved in the construction of USS Monitor, National Marine Initiative, Division of History, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
1989 Iron Afloat: The Story of the Confederate Ironclads, University of South Carolina Press, SC
Strachan, S.
1995 Cerberus Conservation Plan Project: Progress report, corrosion survey report, transitional conservation policy, recommendations, materials costings on immediate actions required, with costing estimates for other longer term options, Prepared for Bayside City Council on behalf of Heritage Victoria Cerberus Project Team, Heritage Victoria, unpublished report.
South, S. 1977 Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc.
New York, New York Trigger, B.
1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press: New York
124
Tulley, P.
2009 Our Heritage to Arise from the Waters? HMVS Cerberus. In Iron, Steel & Steamship Archaeology: Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Seminar, Held in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, 2006, edited by Mack McCarthy.Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle.
Turgoose, S.
1989 Corrosion and structure: Modelling the preservation mechanisms, Evidence Preserved in Corrosion Products: New Fields in Artifact Studies, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Occasional Papers No. 8
U.S. Congress 1864 House. House Executive Document 69, Report of the Secretary of the
Navy in Relation to Armored Vessels (hereafter cited as Report ... Armored Vessels), 38th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1864) :1-2. Van Diver, B.B.
1985 Roadside geology of New York, Mountain Press, Missoula, MT.
Victorian Parliamentary Papers
1867 1st Session, 1867, Volume 4. Melbourne, VIC.
Watson, P.J.
1983 Method and theory in Shipwreck archaeology. In R.A. Gould (Ed.), Shipwreck Anthropology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque: 23-36.
Watts, G.P., Jr.
1983 Investigating the Remains of the U.S.S. Monitor: A final report on the 1979 Site Testing in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
1985 Deep-water archaeological investigations and site-testing in the Monitor National Marine Sancutary, Journal of Field Archaeology (12): 315-332.
Webber, RJ.
1969 Monitors of the U.S. Navy, 1861-1937, Naval Historical Division, Washington DC.
Welles, G. (Compiler).
125
1899 The original United States Warship “Monitor” New Haven, Connecticut: Cornelius S. Bushnell National Memorial Association
Wells, J.
1987 The immortal Warrior Britain’s first and last battleship. Kenneth Mason, Michigan
Wimmer, M.
2005 Archaeology of the Russian Scare: The Port Adelaide Torpedo Station. Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, School of Humanities, Flinders University, Adelaide.
